9 30. The Inter-American Court has indicated the importance of the State minimizing restrictions to information as much as possible, in order to guarantee the different currents in the political debate, promoting informative pluralism. Thus, it has understood that “Given the importance of freedom of expression in a democratic society and the responsibility it implies for social communication media outlets and for those who exercise these tasks professionally, the State must minimize the restrictions to information and balance, as much as possible, the participation of the different currents present in the public debate, promoting informative pluralism. This explains the protection of the human rights of whoever faces the power of the media, and who must exercise his social function with responsibility and an effort to ensure structural conditions that allow an equitable expression of ideas.”42 31. Ultimately, freedom of expression is a condition for the community, when exercising its options, to be sufficiently informed. Consequently, it can be asserted that a society that is not well-informed is not fully free.43 II. DETERMINATION OF NON-VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION OF SOME VICTIMS (SHAREHOLDERS) A) Company shareholders as victims, individually, in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights 32. Under the inter-American system, the ius standi of legal persons has been reduced to certain rights held by individuals who form part of the company or undertaking. Thus, in the Case of Cantos v. Argentina, the Inter-American Court, following in the steps of the wellknown case of Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company of the International Court of Justice, affirmed the principle of distinguishing between the rights of natural persons who formed part of legal persons and the rights of legal persons. 44 In this way, the Inter-American Court determined that the rights of company shareholders refer, for example, to receiving dividends, participating in the administration of the company through its administrative bodies, and receiving a part of what remains of the company’s assets following its liquidation, among other benefits,45 so that they could possibly be declared victims in the respective cases. 33. The European Court has considered that the word “victim” used in Article 34 of the European Convention denotes the person directly affected by the act or omission in question. 46 In the case of the European human rights system, with the adoption of the Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Protocol No. 1) on March 20, 1952, and its entry into force on May 18, 1954, it was expressly recognized that legal persons or entities could have ius standi before the extinct European Commission of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights, by the inclusion in its Article 1 that “[e]very natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions”47 (underlining added). 42 Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela, para. 106. Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 American Convention on Human Rights), para. 70. 43 Cf. Case of Cantos v. Argentina, para. 26. Citing the Case of Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1970, p. 36, para. 47. 44 45 Case of Cantos v. Argentina, para. 26. The word “victim” in the context of Article 25 denotes the person directly affected by the act or omission in question, the existence of a possible violation, even in the absence of harm. See, inter alia, Vatan v. Russia, No. 47978/99, October 7, 2004, para. 48, and Eckle v. Germany, July 15, 1982, Series A No. 51, p. 30, para. 66. 46 47 Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 1.