PARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE EDUARDO FERRER MAC-GREGOR POISOT CASE OF GRANIER ET AL. (RADIO CARACAS TELEVISIÓN) V. VENEZUELA JUDGMENT OF JUNE 22, 2015 (Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs) INTRODUCTION 1. This case emphasizes the importance of freedom of thought and expression in a democratic society, which was underscored by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Court” or “the Inter-American Court”) in its Advisory Opinion OC-5/85 on Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism 1 30 years ago. Since then, the Inter-American Court has been providing wide-ranging content to Article 13 of the American Convention, particularly in contentious cases and cases involving public interest such as this one, guaranteeing simultaneously both the individual dimension and the social dimension of this right. 2. The judgment reiterates the importance of the media as vehicles for the exercise of the social dimension of freedom of expression in a society that is authentically democratic, so that it is essential that the most diverse information and opinions are obtained. 2 Thus, the need to adequately guarantee not only the dissemination of information and ideas in general, but also those that are disagreeable or critical of the State or any sector of the population. Thus, “[a]ny condition, restriction or penalty in this regard must be proportionate to the legitimate purpose sought.”3 3. The social media are generally “organisations of people who have assembled to exercise their freedom of expression in a sustained manner, so that nowadays, it is unusual that a media outlet is not registered as a legal person, because the production and distribution of information requires an organizational and financial structure that responds to the requirements of the demand for information.”4 “Similarly, just as labor unions are instruments for the exercise of the right to freedom of association of workers, and political parties are vehicles for citizens to exercise their political rights, the media are mechanisms for the exercise of the right to freedom of expression of those who use them as a means of imparting their ideas and information.”5 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, especially para. 70. 1 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, para. 149; and Case of Fontevecchia and D´Amico v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2011. Series C. No 238, para. 44. 2 Cf. Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 5, 2001. Series C No. 73, para. 69; and Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 22, 2015. Series C No. 293, para. 140. 3 Similarly, expert witness Alfredo Morles Hernández indicated that “even if corporate organization in the field of telecommunications was merely discretional, the general rule provided by national and international practice is that, in order to exercise the right to freedom of expression, those involved organize themselves in the form of a company.” Opinion of expert witness Morles Hernández dated May 5, 2014 (merits file, folio 1607). Also, see: Constitution Court of Colombia. Judgment T-611 of 1992. M.P Alejandro Martínez Caballero, Fabio Morón Díaz. 4 5 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, para. 148.