State must act to prevent concentration and promote pluralism of voices, opinions and views. To this extent, the State must democratize access to the different media, ensure 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 appropriate measures to prevent or limit the existence and formation of monopolies and oligopolies, but also to establish adequate mechanisms for their control. 87. The Court has recognized the importance of the media for the exercise of the right to freedom of expression, thought and information. Indeed, the Court has characterized the media as true instruments of freedom of expression, 114 and has further stated that “it is the mass media that make the exercise of freedom of expression a reality. This means that the conditions of its use must conform to the requirements of this freedom, with the result that there must be, inter alia, a plurality of means of communication, the barring of all monopolies thereof, in whatever form […].” 115 88. Indeed, the Court has considered that pluralism in the media and news 116 provides an effective guarantee of freedom of expression, 117 and that the State has a duty to protect and ensure this under Article 1(1) of the Convention by minimizing restrictions on the dissemination of information, encouraging balanced participation, 118 and allowing the media to be open to all without discrimination, so that “no individuals or groups are excluded a priori.” 119 Therefore, the State has the duty to adopt the measures necessary so that all segments of the population can access the media. 89. To achieve this objective, the State must democratize access in such a way that it recognizes, promotes or encourages diverse forms and applications that each sector can use to access and operate media and, consequently, create spaces for differentiated forms of media and the corresponding legal instruments to provide them with legal certainty. In fact, in the “Joint Declaration on Diversity in Broadcasting” of 2007, the Rapporteurs for Freedom of Expression of the UN, the OSCE, the OAS and the African Commission stated that “community broadcasting should be explicitly recognized in law as a distinct form of broadcasting.” 120 90. Similarly, in 2018, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, the OAS Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and the ACHPR (African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information recognized the positive obligation of States to “ensure that community media have space to operate on all distribution platforms and adequate resources.” 121 114 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, para. 149, and Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Television) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 148. 115 Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, supra, para. 34. 116 Cf. Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism, para. 34, and Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Television) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 142. 117 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 116, and Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Television) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 142. 118 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina, para. 57, and Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Television) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 22, 2015. Series C No. 293, para. 142. 119 Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, supra, para. 34, and Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Television) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 142. 120 Joint Declaration on Diversity in Broadcasting, supra. 121 Cf. Joint Declaration on Media Independence and Diversity in the Digital Age, adopted on May 2, 2018. Available at: http://www.oas.org/eng/iachr/expression/showarticle.asp?artID=1100&lID=2. -26-