II. 11. Article 13 (Freedom of Thought and Expression) was not violated Article 13(1) of the American Convention establishes the following: Article 13. Freedom of Thought and Expression 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. 12. Once again it is necessary to point out that this provision has not been transcribed in the text of the judgment. Perhaps the reason for this unjustified omission is the fact that it is sufficient to read Article 13 to understand that the refusal to hand over certain information considered necessary in order to exercise the rights to participation and to consultation of an indigenous or tribal people are unrelated to “freedom of thought and expression” and, in particular, with the “freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds.” 13. As the Court rightly indicated in the judgment in the Sarayaku case: [R]egarding the alleged violation of Articles 13, 23 and 26 of the Convention, the Court agrees with the Commission that, in cases such as this one, access to information is vital for effective democratic monitoring of the State’s management of the exploration and exploitation of natural resources on the territory of indigenous communities, a matter of evident public interest. Nevertheless, the Court considers that, in this case, the facts have been sufficiently analyzed and the violations conceptualized under the rights to communal property, consultation and cultural identity of the Sarayaku People, in the terms of Article 21 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof; accordingly, it will not rule on the alleged violation of those provisions.372 14. In the instant case, the Court considered the possible violation of Article 13 ex officio, because it had not been alleged by either the Commission or the presumed victims.373 It immediately began to examine the possible violation of Article 13 consisting in the “the State’s failure to answer the request for information on the property titles, which the victims have alleged.”374 More precisely, this was a request “to clarify and produce the relevant documents that prove whether the persons identified above [H.J. De Vries and Harrold Sijlbing] possess valid land titles in the village of Pierrekondre; and if so, [to explain] the nature of those titles and whether the said persons had permission to build houses and/or stores under them. [They] asked that this information be provided in writing legislative or other measures required to make those rights effective and to respect and ensure their free and full exercise without discrimination, in accordance with Articles 2 and 1(1) of the Convention, respectively.” This was an evident inconsistency which the Court should not repeat. 372 Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, para. 230. 373 Case of the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v. Suriname. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2015, para. 259. 374 Case of the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v. Suriname, supra, para. 260. 5