of promotion and protection of the Inter-American Human Rights System, to the detriment of the victims of human rights violations in the hemisphere." 65. In addition, it adds to the foregoing, "the fact that the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression is not a member of the IACHR and therefore does not participate in the voting of reports on individual petitions." Likewise, it is recorded that the former Rapporteur Catalina Botero has not held the position since October 2014 and did not participate in the evaluation of this case in its admissibility and merits stages. 3. Admission of article 25 66. The State objected in its observations on the merits, the admissibility of Article 25 of the Convention by the Commission in its admissibility report. The State observes that "it is strange that the InterAmerican Commission, without further argument, has decided to admit the alleged violation of the aforementioned article, without the facts argued by the parties being able to infer their violation." Regarding this point, although the petitioners did not allege a violation of the aforementioned article, the Commission, after analyzing the circumstances described, determined the admissibility of an alleged violation of Article 25 without prejudging the matter, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure that it provides, in Article 36, paragraph 2, "[t]he adoption of an admissibility report does not constitute a prejudgment as to the merits of the matter." 67. On the other hand, the State, in its observations on the merits, has presented in a timely manner the considerations of fact and law that it considered relevant in order to object to the existence of an alleged violation of Article 25 of the Convention, which fully verifies the exercise of the right to the defense of the State. 68. Finally, it is important to mention that the Commission can automatically observe possible violations of human rights not contemplated by the petitioners, provided that the case comes to the attention of the IACHR. Particularly, according to the testimony and the documentaries presented by the alleged victims, the Commission considered admissible the inclusion of Article 25 of the Convention, which will be analyzed in the present report on the merits. C. Freedom of thought and expression (Article 13) in relation to Articles 1.1 and 2 of the American Convention84 69. The IACHR, in accordance with the doctrine and jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court, has emphasized the importance of the right to freedom of thought and expression in accordance with the protection granted by Article 13 of the American Convention. This enshrines the right to seek, receive, and disseminate information and ideas of all kinds85. Likewise, it has highlighted the importance of this right for the development of personality, the exercise of personal autonomy, and other fundamental rights and, and as well for the consolidation and strengthening of democratic society86. 70. 84 In this regard, the Commission and the Inter-American Court have held that freedom of Article 13 of the American Convention provides that: 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought and expression. This right includes freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, in print, in the form of art, or through any other medium of one's choice. 2. The exercise of the right provided for in the foregoing paragraph shall not be subject to prior censorship but shall be subject to subsequent imposition of liability, which shall be expressly established by law to the extent necessary to ensure: a. respect for the rights or reputations of others; or b. the protection of national security, public order, or public health or morals. 3. The right of expression may not be restricted by indirect methods or means, such as the abuse of government or private controls over newsprint, radio broadcasting frequencies, or equipment used in the dissemination of information, or by any other means tending to impede the communication and circulation of ideas and opinions. […] I/A Court H.R., Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-5/85 of November 13, 1985. Series A No. 5, para. 30; IACHR, Report No. 82/10, Case 12,524, Merits, Jorge Fontevecchia and Hector d'Amico, Argentina, July 13, 2010, para. 86. Available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/demandas/12.524Esp.pdf. 85 I/A Court H.R., Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-5/85 of November 13, 1985. Series A No. 5, paras. 31 and 32; IACHR, Report No. 86 15