parties, trade unions, scientific and cultural societies and, in general, for those who wish to influence the public.” 102 Similarly, the Inter-American Democratic Charter, which is an authentic interpretation of both the Charter of the Organization of American States (hereinafter “OAS Charter” or “the Charter”) and the Convention, that is, by the States parties themselves, characterizes freedom of expression and of the press as one of the “fundamental components of the exercise of democracy.” 103 80. The Court has reiterated that the right to freedom of thought and expression has an individual dimension, interpreted as the right to seek, receive and impart ideas and information of all kinds, as well as a social dimension, which refers to the right to receive and have access to information and ideas expressed by others. 104 81. In this regard, the Court has indicated that the individual dimension “is not exhausted in the theoretical recognition of the right to speak or write, but also includes, inseparably, the right to use any appropriate method to disseminate thought and allow it to reach the greatest number of persons.” 105 Thus, the expression and dissemination of information and ideas are indivisible, so that a restriction of the possibilities of dissemination represents directly, and to the same extent, a limit to the right to free expression. 106 82. Regarding the social dimension of this right, the Court has established that freedom of expression is a way of exchanging ideas and information between persons; it includes the right to try to communicate one’s point of view to others, but it also implies everyone’s right to know opinions, reports and news. For the ordinary citizen, the knowledge of other people’s opinions and information is as important as the right to impart their own. 107 83. The Court has reaffirmed the importance of pluralism in the context of the exercise of the right to freedom of expression and has indicated that this implies tolerance and a spirit of openness, without which no democratic society can exist. 108 The importance of pluralism has also been emphasized by the OAS General Assembly in several resolutions, in which it has reaffirmed that “free and independent media are fundamental for democracy, for the promotion of pluralism, tolerance and freedom of thought and expression, and for the facilitation of free and open dialogue and debate in all sectors of society, without discrimination of any kind.” 109 102 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. 70. See also, Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 112; Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 82, and Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 85. 103 Article 4 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter, adopted on September 11, 2001. 104 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008, Series C, No. 177, para. 53, and Case of Grijalva Bueno v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 3, 2021. Series C No. 426, para. 152. 105 Cf. Case of "The Last Temptation of Christ" (Olmedo Bustos et al.) v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 5, 2001. Series C No. 73, para. 65, and Case of Bedoya Lima et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 26, 2021. Series C No. 431, para. 109. 106 Cf. Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al.) v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 65, and Case of Urrutia Laubreaux v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 27, 2020. Series C No. 409, para. 78. 107 Cf. Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al.) v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 65, and Case of Urrutia Laubreaux v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 79. 108 Cf. Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al.) v. Chile, para. 69, and Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 195, para. 116. 109 UN, General Assembly. Resolution on the right to freedom of thought and expression and the importance of the media. AG/RES. 2679 (XLI-O/11), June 7, 2011, para. 5. Available at: -24-