but also with regard to those that are unpleasant for the State or any sector of the population. 128 Thus, any condition, restriction or sanction in this matter must be proportional to the legitimate aim pursued. 129 Without an effective guarantee of freedom of expression, the democratic system is weakened and pluralism and tolerance suffer, monitoring and citizen complaint mechanisms can become inoperative and, ultimately, a fertile field is created for authoritarian systems to take root. 130 88. In this respect, the Court notes that Articles 3 and 4 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter highlight the importance of freedom of expression in a democratic society, establishing that “ Essential elements of representative democracy include, inter alia, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, access to and the exercise of power in accordance with the rule of law, the holding of periodic, free, and fair elections based on secret balloting and universal suffrage as an expression of the sovereignty of the people, the pluralistic system of political parties and organizations, and the separation of powers and independence of the branches of government.” Similarly, it states “Transparency in government activities, probity, responsible public administration on the part of governments, respect for social rights, and freedom of expression and of the press are essential components of the exercise of democracy.” 131 89. In relation to the foregoing, this Court recalls that, since its inception, it has highlighted the importance of pluralism in the framework of the exercise of the right to freedom of expression, by pointing out that it implies tolerance and a spirit of openness, 132 without which there is no democratic society. The relevance of pluralism has, in turn, been highlighted by the OAS General Assembly in various resolutions, in which it has reaffirmed that "free and independent media are fundamental for democracy, for the promotion of pluralism, tolerance and freedom of thought and expression, and for the facilitation of dialogue and debate, free and open to all segments of society, without discrimination of any kind”. 133 Cf. Case of "The Last Temptation of Christ" (Olmedo Bustos et al.) v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 5, 2001. Series C No. 73, par. 69, and Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2017. Series C No. 340, par. 117. 128 Cf. Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ" (Olmedo Bustos et al.) v. Chile, supra, par. 69, and Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 22, 2015. Series C No. 293, par. 140. 129 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, par. 116, and Case of Bedoya Lima et al. v. Colombia, supra, par. 111. 130 OAS General Assembly, Inter-American Democratic Charter, Resolution AG/RES. 1 (XXVIII-E/01) of September 11, 2001, Articles 3 and 4. 131 Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ" (Olmedo Bustos et al.) v. Chile, supra, par. 69, and Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, supra, par. 141. 132 133 Cf., inter alia, OAS General Assembly, Resolutions on the Right ot Freedom of Thought and Expression and the Importance of the Media AG/RES. 2679 (XLI-O/11) (Approved in the fourth plenary session, held on June 7, 2011), Operative Paragraph 5; AG/RES. 2523 (XXXIX-O/09) (Approved in the fourth plenary session, held on June 4, 2009), Operative Paragraph 5; AG/RES. 2434 (XXXVIII-O/08) (Approved in the fourth plenary session, held on June 3, 2008), par. 5; AG/RES. 2287 (XXXVII-O/07) (Approved in the fourth plenary session, held on June 5, 2007), Operative Paragraph 5; AG/RES. 2237 (XXXVI-O/06) (Approved in the fourth plenary session, held on June 6, 2006), Operative Paragraph 5; AG/RES. 2149 (XXXV-O/05) (Approved in the fourth plenary session, held on June 7, 2005), Operative Paragraph 4. 32