33 the individual become ineffectual and, above all, a fertile ground is created for authoritarian systems to take root in society.62 117. Notwithstanding, freedom of thought and expression is not an absolute right and it can be subjected to some restrictions,63 particularly where it interferes with other rights guaranteed in the Convention.64 Given the importance of freedom of thought and expression in a democratic society and the great responsibility it entails for professionals in the field of social communications, the State must not only minimize restrictions on the dissemination of information, but also extend equity rules, to the greatest possible extent, to the participation in the public debate of different types of information, fostering informative pluralism. Under these terms is to be explained the protection of the human rights of those who face the power of the media, who are required to discharge their social function responsibly,65 and the attempt to ensure the structural conditions, which allow the equitable expression of ideas.66 118. The effective exercise of freedom of expression depends upon social conditions and practices that stimulate such exercise. It is possible to illegally restrict such freedom by the legal or administrative actions of the State or by de facto conditions that put, directly or indirectly, in a situation of risk or greater vulnerability those who exercise or attempt to exercise such freedom, by actions or omissions of state agents or private individuals. Within the framework of the obligations to guarantee the rights enshrined in the Convention, the State must abstain from acting in a way that fosters, promotes, favors or deepens such vulnerability67 and it has to adopt, whenever appropriate, the measures that are necessary and reasonable to prevent or protect the rights of those who are in that situation, as well as, where appropriate, investigate the facts that affect them. 119. In the case at hand, the Court notes that most of the facts alleged in the application to be in breach of Articles 5 and 13 have been committed by private individuals, to the detriment of reporters and other members of news teams of Globovisión, and against the assets and vehicles of the television station as well. 120. The Court has pointed out that the international responsibility may also be generated by acts of private individuals not attributable in principle to the State.68 The State may be found responsible for acts by private individuals in cases in which, through actions or 62 Cf., in similar terms, Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, supra note 59, para. 116 63 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, supra note 59, para. 120; Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, supra note 29, para. 131; Case of Kimel v. Argentina, supra note 59, para. 54; Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay, supra note 59, para. 95; Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 79. 64 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina, supra note 59, para. 56; Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, supra note 29, para. 131. 65 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa V. Costa Rica, supra note 59, para. 117 and 118. 66 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina, supra note 59, para. 57. The Tribunal has held that “there must be […], a plurality of means of communication, the barring of all monopolies thereof, in whatever form”. 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, supra note 59 para. 34. 67 Cf.; inter alia, Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03. Series A Nº 18, para. 112-117, Case of the “Maripirán Massacre” v. Colombia, supra nota 22, para. 173-189. 68 Cf. Case of the “Maripirán Massacre” v. Colombia, supra nota 22, para. 111; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 113; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra note 20 para. 77.