14 case, but only of the company. In reality, what was requested was the right of the company to continue working. However, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is unable to grant this type of restitution because it exceeds what it is supposed to protect. Consequently, I understand that this measure goes against the Court’s case law and contradicts the defense of democratization and pluralism of the press, so dear to the values protected by the American Convention. V. Final considerations 73. Despite my position which, to a great extent, concurs with the provisions of judgment, and my personal conviction that, when possible, discrepancies should be avoided on points that are merely conceptual, the rationale presented here is essential for the case law of this Court. In its mission to protect the human rights contained in the American Convention, the Court should always decide carefully and with view to the future in light of the possible consequences of its decisions. Even though these decisions are intended to establish the international responsibility of the States Parties, it is necessary to consider the broader context in which violations take place; not to attenuate or deny the role of the State, but rather to determine the real dimension of the significance of its actions. The violation of a human right of a defenseless individual is different from the violation of a human right of another that has extensive mechanisms for defense and, at times, the abuse of power. 74. There are many elements involved in the rights to freedom of the press and freedom of expression that are crucial for the consolidation of democracy in our hemisphere. The States, not only of this region but of the whole world are increasingly concerned about the regulation of the media as a fundamental aspect for the exercise of these rights. This does not mean that we should accept censure, but rather permit a plurality of quality information and in a more democratic way. 75. The Case of Granier et al. v. Venezuela is an example of how a monopoly in the media, either of the State or of private entities, can be harmful for society and can violate the collective aspect of the right to freedom of thought and expression. In a context of political tensions such as that experienced by Venezuela, it is unacceptable that either party ceases to comply with its institutional role and, above all, to act in a way that reinforces efforts that harm the democratic rule of law. Even political opposites must conduct themselves within a democratic framework. 76. As previously mentioned, the media operate under a public concession. This involves not only an ethical commitment, that should be fulfilled in all areas, but also the observance of certain rights and obligations. Even though, it is not pertinent to consider that RCTV violated the American Convention directly, this does not mean that RCTV does not have obligations and limitations resulting from domestic law and other international documents. 77. I am not ignoring the responsibility of the Venezuelan State for the human rights violations found in this judgment, but merely consider that they should have been analyzed within a broad context of the political tensions, with excesses committed on both sides, including even the serious action taken by the company by supporting and endorsing a coup d’état, which is the most serious 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. 78. Freedom of thought and expression is not just about freedom of the press. To the contrary, it may conflict with this in case of abuse. It is necessary to give increasing attention to the collective dimension of human rights, in this case of freedom of expression, and the Inter-American Court is the necessary agent in this regard.