CONCURRING OPINION OF THE JUDGES EDUARDO FERRER MAC-GREGOR POISOT AND RICARDO C. PEREZ MANRIQUE CASE OF PALACIO URRUTIA ET AL. V. ECUADOR JUDGMENT OF NOVEMBER 24, 2021 (Merits, Reparations and Costs) I. INTRODUCTION REITERATION OF THE PRECEDENT OF THE CASE OF ÁLVAREZ RAMOS V. VENEZUELA REGARDING THE PROTECTION OF SPEECH IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST 1. The judgment in the Case of Palacio Urrutia et al. v. Ecuador (hereinafter “the judgment” or “Palacio Urrutia”) 1 constitutes an important contribution to the case law regarding the right to freedom of expression. The judgment adds to the approach followed by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter "the Court" or "the InterAmerican Court") in the case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela, with regard to the scope of the protection granted by Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “American Convention”, “Convention” or “San José Pact”) to public interest speech, specifically when it is issued by a journalist and refers to the action of public officials in the exercise of their duties. 2 Of course, the approach of the Court in this case follows, in its fundamental assumptions, the extensive case law on freedom of expression developed since OC-5/85 regarding the compulsory licensing of journalists. 3 2. The Judgment reaffirms the Court's case law regarding the importance of freedom of expression in matters of public interest, as essential elements of a democratic society. In particular, we highlight the reference that the protection of this type of speech, even if it is critical or ungrateful to a person or a group of people, is protected by Article 13 of the American Convention. The protection of critical discourse allows the existence of pluralism of ideas, and encourages citizens to control the actions of the rulers through participation in the public sphere. In this sense, the Court has referred to the fact that, as the InterAmerican Democratic Charter indicates, and the Judgment reiterates, there is a close relationship between freedom of expression and democracy, since they allow the existence of pluralism in the public sphere, which in turn is based on a spirit of openness and tolerance. 4 3. Within this conceptual framework, it is important to highlight that the judgment reiterates the importance of plurality in the news media. This requires the State to adopt measures that allow all media to be open to all people and groups without discrimination. It also entails a two-way obligation. On the one hand, not to engage in conduct that allows people to be excluded from access to the media, and on the other, the adoption of positive measures that allow under-represented groups to be able to participate in the public sphere and the media. Thus, the importance of social media has emerged, as a central element in 1 Cf. Palacio Urrutia et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2021. Cf. Case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 30, 2019. Series C No. 380. 2 Cf. Compulsory membership in an association prescribed by law for the practice of journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-5/85 of November 13, 1985. Series A No. 5. 3 4 Cf. Palacio Urrutia et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2021, par. 87-89.