8 we who are protected by this article will only realize our individual right to express our ideas if they reach the other citizens, who have to the right to receive them: Article 13 indicates that freedom of thought and expression “includes freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds....” This language establishes that those to whom the Convention applies not only have the right and freedom to express their own thoughts but also the right and freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds. Hence, when an individual's freedom of expression is unlawfully restricted, it is not only the right of that individual that is being violated, but also the right of all others to “receive” information and ideas. The right protected by Article 13 consequently has a special scope and character, which are evidenced by the dual aspect of freedom of expression. It requires, on the one hand, that no one be arbitrarily limited or impeded in expressing his own thoughts. In that sense, it is a right that belongs to each individual. Its second aspect, on the other hand, implies a collective right to receive any information whatsoever and to have access to the thoughts expressed by others.20 39. In its social dimension, which should always be considered, freedom of expression allows for exchanges among citizens, creating progress and democracy by the sharing of opinions and news. It is as or more important to know about recent relevant events and to be able to know the opinion of others, as to be able to impart one’s own ideas, which is an unproductive exercise when others do not have freedom of access to those ideas. 40. On this point, it is important to highlight Principle 9 of the Declaration of Chapultepec adopted by the 1994 Hemisphere Conference on Free Speech, according to which: “[t]he credibility of the press is linked to its commitment to truth, to the pursuit of accuracy, fairness and objectivity and to the clear distinction between news and advertising.” Likewise, the Preamble to the 2002 Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression in Africa: “Considering the key role of the media and other means of communication in ensuring full respect for freedom of expression, in promoting the free flow of information and ideas, in assisting people to make informed decisions and in facilitating and strengthening democracy”. 41. This Court, in the exercise of its mission, must be very aware of what is occurring within the States, analyzing the whole social and political context that surrounds the cases submitted to it. In this regard, it is not possible to disregard the fact that the RCTV executives and the television station itself, who are presented as direct and indirect victims in these proceedings, even though their human rights were violated, were tacitly – and could be formally – accused before the IACHR of violating human rights themselves by denying access to impartial and wellfounded information to Venezuelan society, thereby infringing the legal and ethical commitment that should guide all aspects of the company’s work. Even though the Court is unable to find the international responsibility of private entities, because its jurisdiction is restricted to the States Parties, it should have considered this aspect when taking its decision because it is necessary to consider the protection and promotion of human rights in the region in a broad sense so that its judgments do not encourage future violations thereby undermining the American Convention and the Inter-American Democratic Charter. 42. I repeat that I am not disregarding the responsibility of the Venezuelan State for the human rights violations evidenced in the judgment, but merely noting that this should have been analyzed within the broad context of political tensions, with excesses being committed on both sides - even the serious action of supporting or endorsing a coup d’état, which is the most severe political action against a representative democracy, an aspect that, with the approval of the majority of the Court, was not given due consideration when establishing the State’s responsibility and determining the extent of this. Paradoxically, the judgment convicting the State in this case, which was decided in favor of RCTV, could be the one that awards the highest financial compensation in the Court’s history. 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. 30. 20