only be restricted for the reasons mentioned under Principles I(1) and II of the Declaration. That is, if the restrictions serve a legitimate interest and necessary in a democratic society.106 249. Freedom of expression can also been limited by the clawback clause under Article 9(2) in the context of the phrase „within the law.‟ In Malawi African Association and Others v. Mauritania,107 the African AC HP R Commission stated that “the expression „within the law‟ must be interpreted in reference to international norms‟ which, among others, can also provide grounds of limitation on freedom of expression.”108 250. The African Commission also notes that the right to freedom of expression also carries with it the right to impart information to others, meaning that when an individual‟s freedom of expression is unlawfully restricted, it is not only the right of that individual that is being violated, but also the right of all others to “receive” information and ideas. 251. The Inter-American Court upon referral from the Inter-American Commission confirmed and expanded on the Inter-American Commission‟s ruling in the case of Claude Reyes et al v Chile109 holding that, Article 13 of the American Convention, which specifically establishes the rights to „seek‟ and „receive‟ information, protects the right of all persons to receive information held by the State. It further asserted that, 106 107 108 109 n 76 above, para. 187. Communication 54/91-61/91-96/93-98/93-164/97_196/97-210/98- Malawi African Association and Others v. Mauritania (2000) ACHPR. .para 106. Ibid. para. 102. Claude Reyes et al v Chile (2003), IACHR. 74