7 it involves a collective right to receive any information and to hear the opinions of others. 28 22. In its Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, the Inter-American Court referred to the close relationship that exists between democracy and freedom of expression, when establishing that: [...] freedom of expression is a cornerstone upon which the very existence of a democratic society rests. It is indispensable for the formation of public opinion. It is also a condition sine qua non for the development of political parties, trade unions, scientific and cultural societies and, in general, those who wish to influence the public.29 23. The different regional systems for the protection of human rights and the universal system agree on the essential role played by freedom of expression in the consolidation and dynamics of a democratic society. Without effective freedom of expression, exercised in all its forms, democracy is enervated, pluralism and tolerance start to deteriorate, the mechanisms for oversight and complaint by the individual become ineffectual and, ultimately, a fertile ground is created for authoritarian systems to take root in society.30 24. Regarding the importance of the media, in the said Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, the Inter-American Court referred to the social media when stating that: […] if freedom of expression requires, in principle, that the communication media are potentially open to all without discrimination or, more precisely, that there be no individuals or groups that are excluded from access to such media, it must be recognized also that such media should, in practice, be true instruments of that freedom and not vehicles for its restriction. It is the mass media that make the exercise of freedom of expression a reality. This means that the conditions of its use must conform to the requirements of this freedom, with the result that there must be, inter alia, a plurality of means of communication, the barring of all monopolies thereof, in whatever form, and guarantees for the protection of the freedom and independence of journalists.31 25. Similarly, the European Court has considered that “democracy thrives on freedom of expression” and that “it is of the essence of democracy to allow diverse political programmes to be proposed and debated, even those that call into question the way a State is currently organised, provided that they do not harm democracy itself.”32 It has also underscored “that to ensure true pluralism in the audio-visual sector in a democratic society, it is not sufficient to provide for the existence of several channels or the theoretical possibility for potential operators to access the audio-visual market. It is necessary in addition to allow effective access to the market so as to guarantee diversity of overall programme content, reflecting as far as possible the variety of opinions encountered in the society at which the programmes 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. 64, and Case of Mémoli v. Argentina, para. 119. 28 Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 American Convention on Human Rights), para. 70. 29 Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, para. 116, Mutatis mutandis, Case of The Sunday Times v. The United Kingdom, April 26, 1979, Series A No. 30, para. 65; and Case of Handyside v. The United Kingdom, December 7, 1976, Series A No. 24, para. 49; Cf. African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Media Rights Agenda and Constitutional Rights Project v. Nigeria, Communications Nos 105/93, 128/94, 130/94 and 152/96, Decision of October 31, 1998, para. 54; and Cf. UN., Human Rights Committee, Aduayom et al. v. Togo (422/1990, 423/1990 and 424/1990), decision of July 12, 1996, para. 7.4. 30 Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 American Convention on Human Rights), para. 34. 31 Case of Manole and Others v. Moldavia, No. 13936/02, September 17, 2009, para. 95; and Case of Socialist Party and Others v. Turkey, May 25, 1998, paras. 41 and 45 to 47. 32