63. The Court has also established that freedom of expression, particularly in matters of public interest, “is a cornerstone upon which the very existence of a democratic society rests.” 63 In its Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, the Inter-American Court referred to the close relationship between democracy and freedom of expression when establishing that this right “is indispensable for the formation of public opinion. It is also a condition sine qua non for the full development of political parties, labor unions, scientific and cultural associations and, in general, those who wish to influence the public. It represents, in short, the means that enable the community, when exercising its options, to be sufficiently informed.” 64 Moreover, democratic control exercised by society by means of public opinion encourages the transparency of State activities and promotes the accountability of public officials in public administration; consequently, there should be a very reduced margin for any restriction of political debate or discussions on matters of public interest. 65 64. The Court recalls that, in a democratic society, the inherent human rights and freedoms, their guarantees, and the rule of law constitute a triad, each component of which defines, completes and acquires meaning in function of the others. 66 In this regard, the Court notes that Articles 3 and 4 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter stress the importance of freedom of expression in a democratic society when establishing that “[e]ssential 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.” And, that “[t]ransparency 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.” 67 65. Thus, without an effective guarantee of freedom of expression the democratic system is weakened and pluralism and tolerance are harmed; the mechanisms for control and complaint by the individual become ineffectual and, ultimately, a fertile ground is created for authoritarian systems to take root in society. 68 Consequently, a Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, supra, para. 70, and Case of Palacio Urrutia et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 87. 63 64 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, supra, para. 70. Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein, supra, para. 155, and Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 127. Similarly, ECHR, Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, Judgment of July 12, 2001, para. 83, and Sürek and Özdemir v. Turkey [GS], Judgment of July 8, 1999, nos. 23927/94 and 24277/94, para. 60. 65 66 Cf. Habeas Corpus in Emergency Situations (Arts. 27.2, 25.1 and 7.6 American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-8/87, January 30, 1987. Series A No. 8, para. 26, and Rights to freedom of association, to collective bargaining and to strike, and their relationship to other rights, with a gender perspective (interpretation and scope of Articles 13, 15, 16, 24, 25 and 26, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights, Articles 3, 6, 7 and 8 of the Protocol of San Salvador, Articles 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Convention of Belem do Pará, Articles 34, 44 and 45 of the Charter of the Organization of American States, and Articles II, IV, XIV, XXI and XXII of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man). Advisory Opinion OC-27/21 of May 5, 2021. Series A No. 27, para. 39. Cf. OAS General Assembly, Inter-American Democratic Charter Resolution AG/RES. 1 (XXVIII-E/01) of September 11, 2001, Articles 3 and 4, and Case of Palacio Urrutia v. Ecuador, supra, para. 88. 67 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 116, and Case of Palacio Urrutia v. Ecuador, supra, para. 87. 68 20