9 IV. Regarding the concession procedure as a way of guaranteeing the plurality of the media 43. The right of access to information, one of the elements of the right to freedom of expression, results in rights for society and obligations for all public authorities and for all those who occupy public office, provide public services or manage public funds in the name of the State.21 44. Thus, considering that the media operate on the basis of public concessions, providing a privately-administered public service of informing the population, based on authorizations granted by the State, it can properly be affirmed that the media have obligations they must comply with, and one of these is the obligation to inform the public. 45. In the case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru (2011), the Court determined that “the media have the task of transmitting information and ideas on matters of public interest, [and] the public has the right to receive them”22 as an input for their personal development and for a proper understanding of matters relating to democracy. 46. The exercise of freedom of expression entails duties and responsibilities for those who express themselves. The basic obligation derived from this, is the duty not to violate the rights of others while exercising this fundamental freedom To verify the complementarity and harmonization between the rights and duties resulting from freedom of expression, it is necessary to take into account the specific situation in which the right is exercised, and the technical method used to express and impart the ideas and opinions.23 4.1 The prohibition of monopolies and oligopolies in communication vehicles as a support for the principles of democracy 47. It is precisely for this reason, that application of Article 13 of the American Convention recommends the firm action of the State against the establishment of monopolies and oligopolies in the media. Advisory Opinion OC-5/8524 refer to the need for plurality of such vehicles in order to respect effective freedom of expression. Similarly, in the case of Kimel v. Argentina, the need for the pluralism of information was reinforced, attributing the State with the obligation to guarantee this: “the State must not only minimize restrictions to the circulation of information, but must also, insofar as possible, balance the participation of different opinions in the public debate, promoting the pluralism of information.”25 48. The free circulation of ideas and opinions also means that there cannot be either public or private monopolies, as the Court emphasized in Advisory Opinion OC-5/85 on “Compulsory Special Rapporteurship for freedom of expression (Inter-American Commission for Human Rights). The InterAmerican Legal Framework regarding the Right of Access to Information. OEA/Ser.L/V/II IACHR/RELE/INF.1/09, Washington D.C., 2009, para. 19. 21 I/A Court HR. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, para. 153. 22 Special Rapporteurship for freedom of expression (Inter-American Commission for Human Rights). InterAmerican Legal Framework regarding the right to freedom of expression, OEA/Ser.L/V/II CIDH/RELE/INF.2/09, Washington D.C., 2009, para. 18. 23 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. 34. 24 I/A Court HR. Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008 Series C No. 177, para. 57. 25