6 present matter before it is to determine if the proposed beneficiaries find themselves in a situation of extreme gravity and urgency in avoiding irreparable harm. 11. According to the Commission, the gravity and urgency of the situation result “from the fundamental character of the right in jeopardy - the freedom of expression - as well as from the significance of the closure of the radio stations in the context in which it took place.” 12. Regarding the content of the freedom of expression, the Court’s jurisprudence has stated repeatedly that those who are under the protection of the Convention have the right to seek, receive, and spread ideas and information of any sort, as well as to receive and become aware of the ideas and information spread by others.9 It is for that reason that the freedom of expression has both an individual and a social dimension: this requires, on the one hand, that no one may be arbitrarily disadvantaged or prevented from expressing their thoughts, thereby representing a right belonging to every individual; however, on the other hand, it implies a collective right to receive any information and to obtain knowledge of the expression of another’s thinking.10 13. Additionally, the Tribunal has established the relevance of the fact that the media are virtually, indiscriminately open to all, or - to be more precise - that there are no individuals or groups who are a priori excluded from access to these media.11 Given that social media are useful in helping the exercise of one’s freedom of expression come to fruition, it is essential inter alia that a plurality of media, a prohibition of any monopoly in any form, and freedom and protection for journalists also be possible. 12 Given the importance of the freedom of expression in a democratic society, the State must not only minimize restrictions on the free flow of information, but must also seek as much balance as possible between various information sources in public debate, promoting informative pluralism. Consequently, principles of fairness must govern the flow of information.13 9 Cf. Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-5/85 of November 13, 1985. Series A No. 5, para. 30; Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, para. 53; and Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 27, 2009. Series C No. 193, para. 109. 10 Cf. Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 of the American Convention on Human Rights), supra note 9, para. 30; Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al.) v. Chile. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 5, 2001. Series C No. 73, para. 64; Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, para. 146; Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 108, Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 77; and Case of Kimel v. Argentina, supra note 9, para. 53. 11 Cf. Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 of the American Convention on Human Rights), supra note 9, para. 34. 12 Cf. Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 of the American Convention on Human Rights), supra note 9, para. 34; Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru, supra note 10, para. 149; Case of Herrera Ulloa, supra note 10, para. 117; Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 195, para. 117; and Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 194, para. 106. 13 Cf. Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 of the American Convention on Human Rights), supra note 9, para. 34; Case of Kimel v. Argetina, supra note 9, para. 57; and Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama, supra note 9, para. 113.