84. In this regard, a Joint Declaration was published in 2001 on the challenges to freedom of expression, prepared by the Special Rapporteurs on Freedom of Opinion and Expression of the UN, the OSCE and the OAS. The experts stated that, “[p]romoting diversity should be a primary goal of broadcast regulation; diversity implies gender equity within broadcasting, as well as equal opportunity for all sections of society to access the airwaves.” 110 85. In 2007, the United National Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, the OAS Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and the Special Rapporteur of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information, recognized the varied contributions that different types of broadcasters - commercial, public service and community, as well as broadcasters of different reach – local, national, regional and international - make to diversity in freedom of expression. 111 They also noted that undue concentration of media ownership, among other factors, poses “a threat to media diversity.” 112 86. In this regard, the Court has reiterated that freedom of expression may be affected by the existence of monopolies or oligopolies in ownership of the media, 113 situations in which the https://www.acnur.org/fileadmin/Documents/BDL/2012/8376.pdf; UN, General Assembly. Resolution on the right to freedom of thought and expression and the importance of the media. AG/RES. 2523 (XXXIX-O/09), 4 June 2009, para. 5. Available at: https://www.oas.org/dil/esp/AG-RES_2523-2009.doc; UN, General Assembly. Resolution on the right to freedom of thought and expression and the importance of the media. AG/RES. 2434 (XXXVIII-O/08), 3 June 2008, para. 5. Available at: https://www.oas.org/dil/esp/AGRES_2434.doc; UN, General Assembly. Resolution on the right to freedom of thought and expression and the importance of the media. AG/RES. 2287 (XXXVII-O/07), 5 June 2007, para. 5. Available at: https://www.oas.org/dil/esp/AG-RES_2287_XXXVII-O07.doc; UN, General Assembly. Resolution on the right to freedom of thought and expression and the importance of the media. AG/RES. 2237 (XXXVI-O/06), 6 June 2006, para. 5. Available at: https://www.acnur.org/fileadmin/Documents/BDL/2007/4892.pdf?view=1. Cf. UN, General Assembly. Resolution on the right to freedom of thought and expression and the importance of the media. AG/RES. 2149 (XXXV-O/05), 7 June 2005, para. 4. Available at: http://www.oas.org/xxxvga/docs/SPA/2149.doc, and Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Television) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 22, 2015. Series C No. 293, para. 141. 110 Joint Declaration: Challenges to Freedom of Expression in the New Century, adopted on November 20, 2001. Available at: http://oas.org/eng/iachr/expression/showarticle.asp?artID=48&lID=2. Also, “[d] types of broadcasters – commercial, public service and community – should be able to operate on, and have equitable access to, all available distribution platforms. Specific measures to promote diversity may include reservation of adequate frequencies for different types of broadcasters, must-carry rules, a requirement that both distribution and reception technologies are complementary and/or interoperable, including across national frontiers, and non-discriminatory access to support services, such as electronic programme guides.” Joint Declaration on Diversity in Broadcasting, adopted on December 12, 2007. Available at: http://www.oas.org/eng/iachr/expression/showarticle.asp?artID=719&lID=2. 111 Cf. Joint Declaration on Diversity in Broadcasting, supra. 112 Cf. Joint Declaration on Diversity in Broadcasting, supra. 113 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, supra, para. 56, and Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Television) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 143. See also, OAS, IACHR. Freedom of Expression Standards for free and Inclusive Broadcasting. OAS Ser.L/V/II. CIDH/RELE/INF. 3/09, December 30, 2009, paras. 116 and 117. On this point, principle 12 of the Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression states that “Monopolies or oligopolies in the ownership and control of the communication media must be subject to anti‐trust laws, as they conspire against democracy by limiting the plurality and diversity which ensure the full exercise of people’s right to information. In no case should such laws apply exclusively to the media. The concession of radio and television broadcast frequencies should take into account democratic criteria that provide equal opportunity of access for all individuals.” Cf. Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression, principle 12. The Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression was adopted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, in support of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, during its 108th regular session in October 2000. Similarly, in General Comment No. 34, the Human Rights Committee reiterated its observation in general comment No. 10 that “because of the development of modern mass media, effective measures are necessary to prevent such control of the media as would interfere with the right of everyone to freedom of expression.’ The State should not have monopoly control over the media and should promote plurality of the media. Consequently, States parties should take appropriate action, consistent with the Covenant, to prevent undue media dominance or concentration by privately controlled media groups in monopolistic situations that may be harmful to a diversity of sources and views.” OAS, Human Rights Committee. General Comment No. 34: Freedom of opinion and freedom of expression, CCPR/C/GC/34, September 12, 2011, para. 40. -25-