CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE DIEGO GARCIA-SAYÁN IN THE CASE OF MÉMOLI v. ARGENTINA 1. In this Judgment the Inter-American Court reaffirms and develops its consistent case law on freedom of expression under which the Court has repeatedly emphasized the significance and the broad content of this fundamental right. Thus, the Court recalled (para. 119), among other aspects, that the right to freedom of thought and expression recognized in Article 13 of the Convention has, among other elements, both an individual and a social dimension, and that both must be protected simultaneously. To this end, the State must ensure that no one may be arbitrarily prevented from expressing his thoughts and, also, the collective right to receive information and be aware of the expression of the opinions of others. 2. In its consistent case law the Court has reaffirmed that freedom of expression is a fundamental rights in a democratic society. Among other reasons because, as established in the Inter-American Democratic Charter, freedom of expression and of the press are essential components of the exercise of democracy (art. 4). In this regard, without ceasing to be an end in itself, freedom of expression is, in essence, instrumental for the democratic development of a society, assuming that it relates to the exchange of opinions and access to information, and is an instrument for the citizen’s participation in public affairs. 3. In this perspective, the Inter-American Court has established, in cases such as that of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, that there is “[…] agreement between the different regional systems for the protection of human rights and the universal system about the essential role played by freedom of expression in the consolidation and dynamics of a democratic society. Without effective freedom of expression, fully implemented, democracy evaporates, pluralism and tolerance begin to deteriorate, the mechanisms that allow citizens to exercise control and file complaints start to become ineffectual and, in short, a fertile environment is created for an authoritarian system to become rooted in society” (para. 116). 4. The information distributed, specifically, in the mass media has singular relevance and importance. In principle, the mass media should allow information and opinions to be made available to the population that help each individual form his or her own personal opinion so as to be able to exercise the right to participate in public affairs, with more information on which to form an opinion. In addition, in many cases, investigative journalism plays an important role in learning about facts that, otherwise, could have remained hidden or been overlooked. 5. For example, investigative journalism may provide important information and background data to the population and to institutions about gross human rights violations. This is what happened in the case of the serious facts described in the case of Kimel v. Argentina (judgment of May 2, 2008), that occurred during the military dictatorship in that country, in which investigative journalism was of particular importance in reporting and disseminating them. It is in cases such as that one that the true dimension and transcendence of the right to freedom of expression can be appreciated, as well as the importance that the State guarantee its exercise. As established in the Inter-American Court’s judgment in that case, Mr. Kimel had not used excessive language and the criticism