55 81. In the instant case, the statements for which Mr. Canese was sued, made in the context of an electoral campaign and published in two Paraguayan newspapers, permitted the two dimensions of freedom of expression to be exercised. On the one hand, it permitted Mr. Canese to disseminate the information he possessed concerning one of the opposing candidates and, on the other hand, it promoted an exchange of information with voters, providing them with additional elements for forming an opinion and taking decisions regarding the election of the future President of the Republic. 2) Freedom of thought and expression in a democratic society 82. In its Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, the Inter-American Court referred to the close relationship that exists between democracy and freedom of expression, when it stated that: Freedom of expression is a cornerstone upon which the very existence of a democratic society rests. It is indispensable for the formation of public opinion. It is also a conditio sine qua non for the development of political parties, trade unions, scientific and cultural societies 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. Consequently, it can be said that a society that is not well informed is not a society that is truly free.119 83. In the same terms used by the Inter-American Court, the European Court of Human Rights has underscored the importance that freedom of expression has in a democratic society, when it stated that: […] freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential pillars of democratic society and a fundamental condition for its progress and the personal development of each individual. This freedom should not only be guaranteed with regard to the dissemination of information and ideas that are received favorably or considered inoffensive or indifferent, but also with regard to those that offend, are unwelcome or shock the State or any sector of the population. Such are the requirements of pluralism, tolerance and the spirit of openness, without which no ‘democratic society’ can exist. […] This means that […] any formality, condition, restriction or sanction imposed in that respect, should be proportionate to the legitimate end sought.120 114, para. 32. 119 Cf. Case of Herrera-Ulloa, supra note 15, para. 112; and Compulsory Membership in an Association prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism, supra note 114, para. 70. 120 Cf. Case of Herrera-Ulloa, supra note 15, para. 113; Ivcher Bronstein case, supra note 114, para. 152; “The Last Temptation of Christ” case (Olmedo Bustos et al.), supra note 114, para. 69; Scharsach and News Verlagsgesellschaft v. Austria, no. 39394/98, § 29, ECHR 2003-XI; Perna v. Italy [GC], no.48898/98, § 39, ECHR 2003-V; Dichand and others v. Austria, no. 29271/95, § 37, ECHR 26 February 2002; Eur. Court H.R., Case of Lehideux and Isorni v. France, Judgment of 23 September 1998, para. 55; Eur. Court H.R., Case of Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria, Judgment of 20 September 1994, Series A no. 295-A, para. 49; Eur. Court H.R. Case of Castells v. Spain, Judgment of 23 April 1992, Series A. No. 236, para. 42; Eur. Court H.R. Case of Oberschlick v. Austria, Judgment of 25 April 1991, para. 57; Eur. Court H.R., Case of Müller and Others v. Switzerland, Judgment of 24 May 1988, Series A no. 133, para. 33; Eur. Court H.R., Case of Lingens v. Austria, Judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103, para. 41; Eur. Court H.R., Case of Barthold v. Germany, Judgment of 25 March 1985, Series A no. 90, para. 58; Eur. Court H.R., Case of The Sunday Times v. United Kingdom, Judgment of 29 March 1979, Series A no. 30, para. 65; and Eur. Court H.R., Case of Handyside v. United Kingdom, Judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A No. 24, para. 49.