7 6. Hence, in the instant case, the purpose of the application of the pro personae principle in the interpretation of Article 13 of the Convention is precisely to avoid the freedom of thought and expression recognized in that provisions being illusory or subject to a normative pretext that voids it of content or practical effect. 7. Thus, it is within this general framework, that the allusion made in the InterAmerican Democratic Charter to freedom of thought and expression acquires special significance.35 Moreover, it refers to this freedom three times, twice indirectly and once directly. The first indirect reference is in its Article 3, which indicates that one of the essential elements of democracy is “respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.”36 The second is in its Article 7, which establishes that “[d]emocracy is indispensable for the effective exercise of fundamental freedoms and human rights.”37 Obviously, the freedom of thought and expression established in Article 13(1) and (3) of the Convention and in Article IV of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man,38 should be understood within the concept of “fundamental freedoms.” 8. Then, there is a direct reference in Article 4 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter which indicates that an essential component of democracy is “freedom of expression and of the press.”39 9. It is on this basis that the Court has indicated that “[f]reedom of expression is a cornerstone upon which the very existence of a democratic society rests. It is indispensable for the formation of public opinion.”40 This position was reiterated in greater detail when the Court asserted that: “[t]hus 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”; and added that “[w]ithout effective freedom of expression, exercised in all its forms, democracy is enervated, pluralism and tolerance start to deteriorate, the mechanisms for control and complaint by the individual become ineffectual and, above all, a fertile ground is created for authoritarian systems to take root in society.”41 35 Para. 140 of the judgment. “Essential elements of representative democracy include, inter alia, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, access to and the exercise of power in accordance with the rule of law, the holding of periodic, free, and fair elections based on secret balloting and universal suffrage as an expression of the sovereignty of the people, the pluralistic system of political parties and organizations, and the separation of powers and independence of the branches of government.” 36 “Democracy is indispensable for the effective exercise of fundamental freedoms and human rights in their universality, indivisibility and interdependence, embodied in the respective constitutions of states and in inter-American and international human rights instruments.” 37 “Every person has the right to freedom of investigation, of opinion, and of the expression and dissemination of ideas, by any medium whatsoever”. 38 “Transparency in government activities, probity, responsible public administration on the part of governments, respect for social rights, and freedom of expression and of the press are essential components of the exercise of democracy. […]” 39 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.68. 40 This thesis is reiterated in: Cf. Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-5/85 of November 13, 1985. Series A No.5, para. 70; Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para.116; Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 86; Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 28,2009. Series C No. 194, para. 105; Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 28,2009. Series C No. 195, para. 116, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 248, para. 141. 41