- 61 - at one and the same time, a leader of the UP and the PCC, a social communicator and a parliamentarian; consequently, it is not necessary to disaggregate his activities in order to decide which of them was the origin or cause of each alleged violation, because he exercised these rights during the same period, context and situation of absence of protection that has been described above. 172. The Court considers that the Convention protects the essential elements of democracy, which include “access to power and its exercise subject to the rule of law.”247 Among other political rights, Article 23 of the Convention protects the right to be elected, which assumes that the beneficiary of these rights has a real opportunity to exercise them, which means that effective measures must be adopted to guarantee the necessary conditions for their full exercise.248 Similarly, the Court has found that this freedom of expression may be unlawfully restricted by de facto conditions that directly or indirectly place those who exercise it at risk or in a situation of increased vulnerability. Therefore, the State must abstain from acting in a way that contributes to, stimulates, promotes or increases this vulnerability249 and must adopt, when pertinent, necessary and reasonable measures to prevent violations and protect the rights of those who find themselves in this situation.250 In addition, freedom of expression, particularly on matters of public interest, guarantees the dissemination of information and ideas, even those that are disagreeable to the State or any sector of the population.251 Also, Article 16 of the Convention protects the right to associate for political purposes,252 which is why a violation of the right to life or to personal integrity that can be attributed to the State may, in turn, give rise to a violation of Article 16(1) of the Convention, when it results from the victim’s legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of association.253 173. In this regard, it should be emphasized that opposition voices are essential in a democratic society; without them it is not possible to reach agreements that satisfy the different visions that prevail in society.254 Hence, in a democratic society States must guarantee the effective participation of opposition individuals, groups and political 265 of the Constitutional Court, Presiding Judge Alejandro Martínez Caballero, of June 2, 1994 (evidence file, tome XXII, attachment 9 to the final arguments of the representatives, folio 9145). 247 The Inter-American Democratic Charter stipulates that: “[e]ssential elements of representative democracy include, inter alia, […] the pluralistic system of political parties and organizations […].” Inter-American Democratic Charter, Article 3. 248 Cf. Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua, supra note 65, para. 195, and Case of Castañeda Gutman v. United Mexican States, supra note 28, para. 145. 249 Cf. Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 49, para. 118, and Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 49, para. 107. Also, inter alia, Juridical Situation and Rights of Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03. Series A No. 18, paras. 112 to 172 and Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs, supra note 22, paras. 173 to 189. 250 . Cf. Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 49, para. 107 and Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 49, para. 118. 251 Cf. Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 49, para. 105 and Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 49, para. 116. 252 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama, supra note 34, para. 156; Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil, supra note 25, para. 170, and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 37, para. 143. 253 254 Similarly, Cf. Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru, supra note 37, para. 147. Likewise, the European Court of Human Rights has indicated that: “[t]he fact that […] a political project is considered incompatible with the current principles and structures of [a] State does not mean that it infringes democratic rules. It is of the essence of democracy to allow diverse political projects to be proposed and debated, even those that call into question the way a State is currently organized, provided that they do not harm democracy itself”. Case of Freedom and Democracy Party (ÖZDEP) v. Turkey (Application No. 23885/94), 8 December 1999, para. 41; Case of Socialist Party and others v. Turkey (20/1997/804/1007), 25 May 1998, para. 47.