Court considers that the regulation of broadcasting in Guatemala, represented especially by the LGT, produces an unjustified restriction of indigenous people’s right to freedom of expression, and in particular, of the rights of the alleged victims of this case. 154. In addition, it should be recalled that the importance of community radios for indigenous peoples means that the operation and management of their own community radio stations, decisions on programming and active participation in the broadcasts is, par excellence, a form of cultural participation for these communities. Furthermore, the Court finds that the operation of community radio stations by indigenous peoples is an essential vehicle for their cultural survival. Therefore, considering that broadcasting regulations in Guatemala do not, in practice, allow indigenous peoples to establish and use their own means of communication, this means they are prevented from exercising their right to participate in cultural life through their community radio stations. 155. Furthermore, while it is true that the internet has improved access to information and freedom of expression, the digital divide means that social groups who endure poverty and discrimination are unable to access this resource. Hence, traditional forms of oral communication, such as radio, are essential to ensure communication and information, the transfer of traditions and the preservation of indigenous languages. 156. Therefore, the Court considers that, by virtue of the regulatory framework concerning radio broadcasting in Guatemala, especially the LGT, the State is responsible for the violation of the rights to freedom of expression, to equality before the law and to participate in cultural life, established in Articles 13, 24 and 26 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations to respect and guarantee rights without discrimination and the duty to adopt provisions of domestic law, contained in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument, to the detriment of the Maya Kaqchikel indigenous peoples of Sumpango, the Achí of San Miguel Chicaj, the Mam of Cajolá, and the Mam of Todos Santos Cuchumatán. B.2 The alleged violation of Article 13(2) of the Convention in relation to the raids on the Radio Ixchel and Uqul Tinamit “La Voz del Pueblo” community radio stations and the criminal prosecution of their operators 157. The Court has repeatedly stated that, in a democratic society, the restriction of freedom of expression must be proportionate and appropriate for the achievement of legitimate objectives. 227 158. As is clear from the American Convention itself, and as this Court has affirmed, freedom of expression is not an absolute right. Indeed, Article 13(2) of the Convention, which prohibits prior censorship, also provides for the possibility of subsequent liability for the abusive exercise of this right. However, such restrictions must be exceptional and may not limit, beyond what is strictly necessary, the full exercise of freedom of expression or become a direct or indirect mechanism of prior censorship. 228 159. According to the facts proven in the instant case, two community radio stations –Radio Ixchel and “La Voz del Pueblo” - operated without a license by the Maya Kaqchikel indigenous people of Sumpango and the Maya Achí of San Miguel Chicaj, were raided by state authorities as a result of court orders issued in the context of criminal proceedings. Their broadcasting 227 Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, supra, para. 46, and Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, paras. 120 to 123. 228 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 120, and Case of Urrutia Laubreaux v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 81. -43-