7 Radio Caracas Televisión, Marcel Granier, the President of the Bloque de Armas, Andrés de Armas, and also Orlando Urdaneta, of Globovisión, and Patricia Poleo, of El Nuevo País. According to the account given by Vásquez, during the meeting a discussion was held on the errors that the new government had committed and the search for solutions, and the media representatives had agreed to cooperate with the communications policy of the de facto government. This account of the meeting has not been denied, and serves to assert that, although there are no indications that the media were involved in the coup d’état, as President Chávez has insistently indicated, the almost unanimous reaction of the press, radio and television had some common features: zero questioning of the new government and the way in which it took power, omission of information that questioned the version that Chávez had resigned, which implied censorship, and a large dose of partiality reflected in a media discourse on April 12, on the radio and television and on April 13 in the newspapers, directed at giving legitimacy to the actions signifying that President Chávez had been deposed. This combination of factors infringed the people’s right to receive information”17 (bold added). 34. It should be noted that the first victim in this case was cited by name, proof that is coherent with other evidence that stands out in this case, in addition to the responsibility of RCTV as a media outlet. This can be seen from the opinion of the expert witness proposed by the victims, Antonio Pasquali, for example, that RCTV took part in an operation that was morally wrong. 35. It is essential to underscore that the way in which press coverage was conducted during the coup d’état was detrimental not only for the effectiveness of the right to freedom of thought and expression, but also for the consolidation of democracy in Venezuela. In this regard, it is worth citing the following extract from the Inter-American Commission’s report: 473. However, the best way to foster a broader debate on ideas in Venezuela, in light of the political crisis conditions it is currently facing, is through those actions that guarantee the editorial independence of the media and enable journalists to perform, with the utmost care, their task of informing the public. This is the challenge facing the media in Venezuela because their chief responsibility lies with the public and not with the government. The process of reflection that the IACHR called for at the end of its visit to Venezuela is still necessary.18 36. The conduct of the media in that context – in which RCTV participated – prevented Venezuelans from exercising their right established in Article 13 of the American Convention. In this situation, it is important to verify the dual dimension of the parameters established for the exercise of the rights and obligations of freedom of expression in its essential function for democracy, as an individual guarantee that cannot be separated from the collective guarantee. 37. The basic pillars for the interpretation of this article were developed in Advisory Opinion OC-5/85. The first pillar proposed by the Court establishes that freedom of expression is a value that, if it is not respected, endangers the exercise of the essential principles for the existence of a democratic society. In the words of the Court: Freedom of expression is a cornerstone upon which the very existence of a democratic society rests. […] It represents, in short, the means that enable the community, when exercising its options, to be sufficiently informed. Consequently, it can be said that a society that is not well informed is not a society that is truly free.19 38. The content of freedom of expression is linked not only to the individual aspect of the right, but also to its collective dimension. In this regard, the text of OC-5/85 clarifies that these dimensions are necessarily intertwined and must be guaranteed simultaneously. This is because Cf. Human Rights Center of the Universidad Católica Andrés Bello, “Entre el estruendo y el silencio. La crisis de abril y el derecho a la libertad de expresión e información,” 2002. Available at: http://w2.ucab.edu.ve/tl_files/CDH/ recursos/entreelestruendoyelsilencio.pdf. 17 IACHR. Report on the situation of human rights in Venezuela (2003). http://www.cidh.org/countryrep/Venezuela2003eng/toc.htm, consulted September 3, 2015. 18 Available at: I/A Court HR. Advisory Opinion OC-5/85 of November 13, 1985. Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 American Convention on Human Rights), para. 70. 19