90. Additionally, the Court has indicated that the plurality of media or information 134 constitutes an effective guarantee of freedom of expression, 135 and there is a duty of the State to protect and guarantee this assumption, under Article 1(1) of the Convention, by means of both of the minimization of restrictions on information, such as by promoting a balance in participation, 136 by allowing the media to be open to all without discrimination 137, since it is sought that “no individuals or groups are, a priori, excluded”. 138 The Court has also indicated that social communications media play an essential role as vehicles for the exercise of the social dimension of freedom of expression in a democratic society and must, therefore, reflect the most diverse information and opinions. 139 The media are legal entities that serve the exercise of the right to freedom of expression of those who use them as a means of imparting their ideas or information. 140 91. In this sense, the Court has reiterated that freedom of expression can be affected by the existence of monopolies or oligopolies in ownership of the media, 141, situations in which the State must act to avoid concentration and promote pluralism of voices, opinions and visions. To this extent, the State must democratize access to the different media, guarantee diversity and pluralism, and promote the existence of commercial, public and community communication services. It is the duty of the State not only to implement adequate measures to prevent or limit the existence and formation of monopolies and oligopolies, but also to establish appropriate mechanisms for their control. 142 92. The Court has recognized the importance of the media for the exercise of the right to freedom of expression, thought and information. In effect, the Court has characterized the social media as true instruments of freedom of expression, 143 and has also indicated that “[it] is the social media that facilitate the exercise of freedom of expression, in such a way that its operating conditions must be adapted to the requirements of that freedom. Essential for this, inter alia, are the plurality of media, Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, supra, par. 34, and Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, supra, par. 142. 134 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, supra, par. 116, and Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, supra, par. 142. 135 Cf. Caso Kimel Vs. Argentina, supra, par. 57, and Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, supra, par. 142. 136 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, supra, par. 34, and Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, supra, par. 142. 137 Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, supra, par. 34, y Caso Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) Vs. Venezuela, supra, par. 142. 138 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Perú. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, par. 149, and Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, supra, par. 142. 139 140 Cf. Mutatis mutandis, Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, supra, par. 148. Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, supra, par. 56, and Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, supra, par. 143. 141 Cf. Case of Pueblos Indígenas Maya Kaqchikel de Sumpango et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 6, 2021. Series C No. 440., par. 86. 142 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Perú, supra, par. 149, Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) Vs. Venezuela, supra, par. 148. 143 33