CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE SERGIO GARCIA RAMIREZ IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE CASE OF HERRERA ULLOA VS. COSTA RICA, OF JULY 2, 2004 1. Freedom of expression, the media and the practice of journalism 1. This is not the first time that the Inter-American Court has had to adjudicate matters constituting violations of freedom of expression. The Court has examined cases in which such violations were alleged, but the backdrop against which those violations occurred has varied. It might be one of gross human rights violations, a weakening of democracy and institutional conflict. Then again, the context might also be one in which democracy flourishes and fundamental rights are, on the whole, observed. The latter scenario is the one that best fits the case of Herrera Ulloa vs. Costa Rica, which the Court decided in its Judgment of July 2, 2004. I concur with the Court’s judgment in the case and am attaching the present Opinion thereto. The differing backdrops point up an important issue, although not the one I am addressing here: the features that attend the clash between legally protected interests and the preservation of human rights in an “authoritarian environment” as opposed to those that attend such a clash in a “democratic environment.” 2. When on those previous occasions the Court examined violations of Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights, it took into account, as it does in the present judgment to which this Concurring Opinion is affixed, the specific characteristics of freedom of expression when exercised through the mass media. The mass media carry messages to a large audience and therefore have a social impact that the Court has also identified with Article 13 of the American Convention. In a democratic society, the mass media provide information to society as a whole and thus serve to inform the decisions that its members make, with all the consequent implications. 3. Obviously, freedom of expression is upheld and defended, no matter the circumstance. There are no subjective boundaries. Freedom of expression is not confined to any particular human group defined by socioeconomic status, ethnicity, nationality, gender, age, conviction or belief. It is truly universal in that it is a freedom that all people enjoy. However, when that freedom is exercised as a profession, it does have some significant distinctive features that require qualifications, precautions, and specific conditions. Professional journalists cultivate an attitude that takes freedom of expression as a given. They use freedom of expression as a tool for their personal realization and as a means to enable others to develop their human and collective potential. Thus, specific declarations or instruments concerning freedom of expression are premised on its universality and from there go to the particular nature of freedom of expression in the context of the mass media. One finds this, too, at the domestic level, where the effort is made –as it has been in Costa Rica-- to have laws that pertain to the mass media and not just freedom of expression in general. 4. The “transcendental quality” of freedom of expression manifests itself in journalism. The distinctive features of freedom of expression exercised through the mass media include its sweeping scope (which enables it to reach many people, most of them well-removed from the source of the message and unknown to it), and the