has understood that a series of rights are protected by this article.362 The two dimensions are equally important and must be fully ensured simultaneously in order to make the right to freedom of expression completely effective in the terms of Article 13 of the Convention.363 Thus, in light of both dimensions, freedom of expression requires, on the one hand, that no one be arbitrarily prevented from expressing his own opinions and therefore represents a right of each individual, but, on the other hand, it also entails a collective right to receive any type of information and the expression of the opinions of others.364 372. The individual dimension of freedom of expression includes the right to use any appropriate means to disseminate opinions, ideas and information so that it reaches the greatest number of persons. Thus, expression and diffusion are indivisible, so that a restriction of the possibilities of dissemination represents directly, and to the same extent, a limit to the right to express oneself freely.365 373. In the instant case, the ancillary penalties established in Article 9 of the Chilean Constitution were imposed on Aniceto Norín Catrimán, Pascual Huentequeo Pichún Paillalao and Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe (supra paras. 117 and 144). Thus, among other matters, “for 15 years, they were disqualified from […] exploiting a social communication medium or from being a director or administrator of one, or from performing functions related to the emission and diffusion of opinions and information.” 374. The Court considers that this ancillary penalty entailed an undue restriction of the exercise of the right to freedom of thought and expression of Messrs. Norín Catrimán, Pichún Paillalao and Ancalaf Llaupe, not only because it was imposed based on judgments that applied a criminal law that violated the principle of legality and several procedural guarantees (supra Chapter VII.1 and VII.2), but also because, in the circumstances of this case, it is contrary to the principle of the proportionality of the punishment. As the Court has determined, this principles signifies “that the State’s response to a wrongful act of the perpetrator of an offense must be proportionate to the right affected and to the responsibility of the perpetrator, so that it should be established based on the different nature and seriousness of the acts.”366 375. The Court has verified that, as traditional authorities of the Mapuche indigenous people, Messrs. Norín Catrimán, Pichún Paillalao and Ancalaf Llaupe played a decisive role in communicating the interests, and in the political, spiritual and social guidance, of their respective communities (supra para. 78). The imposition of the above-mentioned ancillary penalty has restricted their possibility of taking part in the diffusion of opinions, ideas and information by performing functions in social media, and this could limit the sphere of action of their right to freedom of thought and expression in the exercise of their functions as leaders or representatives of their communities. This, in turn, has a negative impact on the social dimension of the right to freedom of thought and expression, which, as the Court has 362 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, para. 65, and Case of Mémoli v. Argentina, para. 119. 363 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, para. 149, and Case of Mémoli v. Argentina, para. 119. 364 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 146, and Case of Mémoli v. Argentina, para. 119. 365 Cf. Case of "The Last Temptation of Christ" (Olmedo Bustos et al.) v. Chile, para. 65, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 248, para. 138. 366 Cf. Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 108, and Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 196. 127