64 expression of all kinds.293 Article 4 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter provides that “freedom of expression and of the press are essential components of the exercise of democracy.” In effect, full exercise of the right to express one’s ideas and opinions and impart available information and the opportunity to discuss, in an open and unfettered manner, is a conditio sine qua non for democratic systems to function properly.294 212. Based on the foregoing, time and time again the Inter-American Court has held that in a democratic and pluralist system, expression, information and opinions on matters of public interest and on the State and its institutions enjoy greater protection under the American Convention, which means that the State must take greater care to refrain from establishing limitations on these forms of expression; the institutions and officials of the State, and those who aspire to public office, must have a higher threshold of tolerance for criticism, given the public nature of the functions they perform.295 In a democratic society, opinion plays a pivotal role in the oversight of public affairs; hence, the margin for any kind of restriction on political discourse or discussion of public issues is very narrow. Seen from this perspective, legitimate protection of the principles of judicial independence and impartiality cannot be premised on the notion that a judge must remain silent on public issues. Any restrictions must strike a proper balance between expression and the duty of judges to exercise the discretion and prudence necessary to protect the independence and autonomy of their office. 213. The European Court of Human Rights had occasion to analyze the limits on freedom of expression of officials in the judiciary in a case where the debate centered around the question of whether a sanction imposed on a judge for expressing harsh criticism of other public servants and, in particular, the judiciary itself, was legitimate. In effect, in the case of Kudeshkina v. Russia, the European Court held that the removal of a judge for having made public statements criticizing the judicial branch’s lack of independence was a violation of the judge’s right to freedom of expression recognized in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court reasoned that “issues concerning the functioning of the justice system constitute questions of public interest, the debate on which enjoys the protection of Article 10 [of the European Convention on Human Rights].”296 While the European Court acknowledged that judges must be particularly observant in those cases where the independence and impartiality of the justice system might be impugned, it also reasoned that the mere fact that a given matter has political implications “is not by itself sufficient to prevent a judge from making any statement on the matter.”297 293 IACHR. Arguments to the Inter-American Court in the Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Cited in: I/A Court H.R., Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, Paragraph 143. d); IACHR. Arguments to the InterAmerican Court in the Case of the “Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al.) v. Chile. Cited in: I/A Court H.R., Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al.) v. Chile. Judgment of February 5, 2001. Series C No. 73, Paragraph 61. b). 294 Cf. 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, paragraph 69. 295 Cf. I/A Court H.R. Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, paragraph 83, and I/A Court H.R. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107. 296 European Court of Human Rights, Case of Kudeshkina v. Russia, judgment of February 26, 2009, paragraph 86. 297 European Court of Human Rights, Case of Kudeshkina v. Russia, judgment of February 26, 2009, paragraph 95. See also, European Court of Human Rights, Case of Wille v. Lichtenstein, judgment of October 28, 1999, in which the Court held that constitutional issues always have political implications, but that element alone should not prevent judges from making any statement on such matters.