91. In view of the importance of media pluralism for the effective guarantee of the right to freedom of expression, and taking into account the provisions of Article 2 of the Convention, the Court considers that States are internationally obliged to establish laws and public policies that democratize access to the media and guarantee media pluralism in the different areas of communication, such as, for example, the press, radio and television. 122 This obligation includes the duty of the State to establish adequate measures to prevent or limit the existence and formation of monopolies and oligopolies. However, the Court warns that it is not appropriate to condition, directly or indirectly, respect for the right to freedom of expression and thought to the observance of the right of ownership or property rights over the media. These are two different conceptual approaches, as reflected in the Inter-American Democratic Charter, which does not contemplate the second of the aforementioned rights. On the contrary, the Court considers that it is precisely the analytical and regulatory separation of both rights although they are certainly linked - that makes it possible to better enforce or democratize freedom of thought and expression. 92. The aforementioned State obligation necessarily implies the right of indigenous peoples to be represented in the different media, especially by virtue of their distinctive ways of life, their community relations and the importance of the media for these communities (infra paras. 108 to 110), without forgetting that, in the instant case, the majority of Guatemala’s inhabitants identify themselves as part of their country’s native peoples. 93. The right to freedom of expression through indigenous media is exercised individually by each person who issues an opinion or transmits information; but it is also, and most especially, manifested collectively, due to the particular form of organization of indigenous communities. Indeed, for indigenous peoples, the collective dimension of freedom of expression is fundamental for the realization of other collective rights. In this sense, the expert witness Francisco Calí Tzay explained that: For indigenous peoples, freedom of expression has an essential collective dimension, decisive for the full enjoyment of other collective rights, such as the right to autonomy and the right to culture. For example, radio has been used develop indigenous life plans. The right to disseminate and receive information is an essential, basic and fundamental human right, directly associated with the right to freedom of expression. It has been recognized in human rights instruments as a right that States must guarantee without discrimination. Freedom of expression has been defined to encompass not only freedom of information, but also the right to communicate in response to the growing influence of print, radio and television media and the emergence and proliferation of information and communication technologies, such as the internet and social media. 123 94. In this regard, the Court recalls that in the case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, it recognized native peoples as subjects of international law. 124 The Court also emphasized that “international law related to indigenous or tribal peoples and communities recognizes their rights as collective subjects of international law and not only to their members[;] […] indigenous or tribal peoples, united by their particular ways of life and 122 Cf. Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Television) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. supra, para. 145. Similarly, in the case of Centro Europa 7 s.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy, the European Court indicated that in addition to its negative duty of non-interference the State has a positive obligation to put in place an appropriate legislative and administrative framework to guarantee effective pluralism. The Court referred to Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)2 of the Committee of Ministers on media pluralism and diversity of media content, reaffirming that: “in order to protect and actively promote the pluralistic expressions of ideas and opinions as well as cultural diversity, member States should adapt the existing regulatory frameworks, particularly with regard to media ownership, and adopt any regulatory and financial measures called for in order to guarantee media transparency and structural pluralism as well as diversity of the content distributed. ECHR, Case of Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GS], No.38433/09. Judgment of June 7, 2012, paras. 129 to 134. 123 Cf. Written version of the expert opinion submitted to the Court by José Francisco Calí Tzay (evidence file, folio 1420). 124 Cf. Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010. Series C No. 214, paras. 85, 86 and 87. See also: Advisory Opinion OC-22/16, supra, para. 75. -27-