CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE HUMBERTO ANTONIO SIERRA PORTO IN THE CASE OF PALACIO URRUTIA ET AL. V. ECUADOR I. Regarding the inadequate assessment of the violation of the right to freedom of expression 1. The case of Palacio Urrutia et al. v. Ecuador adds to the Inter-American Court’s case law on freedom of expression, through which the broad substance of the protection granted by Article 13 of the American Convention has been established. This judgment reaffirms that the right to freedom of expression is essential for the existence of a democratic society, therefore its protection must be guaranteed with respect to the dissemination of ideas and information, even when it could be considered offensive and hurtful (par. 87). In this sense, it reiterates the importance of pluralism in the exercise of freedom of expression, for the promotion of tolerance, and to facilitate dialogue between different actors in society (par. 89). 2. In relation to the foregoing, the judgment states that the plurality of media constitutes an effective guarantee of freedom of expression, since this prevents discrimination in access to spaces for participation (par. 90). This reaffirms the importance of the State’s action to prevent the existence of monopolies or oligopolies in media ownership from impeding the pluralism of voices and opinions. Actions by the State to achieve pluralism must, of course, be carried out with full respect for the rights protected in the American Convention, so they must refrain from engaging in conduct that, for the sake of democratizing access to the media, violates rights recognized under the convention (par. 93). 3. Similarly, the Judgment referred to the consistent case law on the protection of freedom of expression including both the individual and collective dimensions of this right, indicating that both dimensions are of equal importance and must be fully guaranteed simultaneously to give freedom of expression its full effect (par. 97). In its individual dimension, this right includes the right to use any means to disseminate opinions, ideas and information for it to reach the greatest number of recipients. In its social dimension, it implies the right of people to receive information and news provided by third parties (para. 98). Freedom of expression, in this way, is constituted as a right that seeks to prevent undue interference in the expression of ideas, and also guarantee that they reach their audience. 4. However, the Court has reiterated in its case law that the right to freedom of expression is not absolute. Article 13(2) of the Convention prohibits prior censorship, but provides for the possibility of establishing subsequent liability in the abusive exercise of this right, including to ensure "respect for the rights or reputation of others." Hence, the Court has recognized the possibility of such subsequent liabilities being imposed in cases in which other rights may be affected, such as the honor or reputation of individuals. For this reason, it has been argued that it is necessary to guarantee that both rights "coexist harmoniously" (par. 100). The solution to guarantee this coexistence between the different rights that are in conflict is carried out, in abstraction, by a weighting, which is carried out according to the particular characteristics of the cases brought before the Court. 5. In most of the Court's case law, the classification of the validity of the imposition of subsequent liabilities has been carried out based on the application of a proportionality test. The application of this test entails a concurrent analysis of the following requirements: a) that the sanction is previously established by law, in a formal or material sense; b) that its imposition responds to an objective established by the American Convention, such as the protection of the rights of others; and c) that it is necessary in a democratic society, for which it must meet the requirements of suitability, necessity and proportionality (par. 104-105). In this way, the Court has been able to analyze cases that involve the application of criminal or