50 145. Pursuant to the above, States have the international obligation to adopt the necessary measures “to give effect to” the rights and principles established in the Convention, as stipulated in Article 2 of this inter-American instrument, and to this end they must establish laws and public policies that guarantee the pluralism of information and news via the different media, such as the press, radio and television. 214 1.2. Exercise of the right to freedom of expression through legal persons 146. The Court has established that, even though the device of legal persons is not expressly recognized by the American Convention, as it is in Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, this does not restrict the possibility that, in certain circumstances, an individual may have recourse to the inter-American system for the protection of human rights to assert his fundamental rights, even when these are covered by a legal device or fiction created by the legal system itself. 215 Nevertheless, a distinction should be made in order to specify which situations can be examined by this Court under the American Convention.216 In this regard, the Court has already examined the possible violation of the right to property of certain persons in their capacity as shareholders.217 Thus, for example, in cases such as Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru, Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador and Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, the Court has analyzed acts that affected the legal persons of which they were shareholders.218 In those cases, the Court differentiated the rights of a company’s shareholders from those of the legal person, indicating that domestic law grants shareholders certain direct rights, such as to receive the agreed dividends, to attend and vote in general assemblies, and to receive part of the company’s assets if it is liquidated. 219 147. In this case, the Court will analyze the exercise of the right to freedom of expression of natural persons through legal persons because, in addition to the violation of the right to property, the possible violation of this right as it applies to RCTV employees and shareholders has been alleged as a result of legal acts addressed, in principle, at the communications outlet. 148. In this regard, the Court has previously indicated that the media are true instruments of freedom of expression.220 Their function is to materialize this right 221 and they play an Similarly, in the case of Centro Europa 7 S.R.L. and Di Stefano v. Italy, the European Court indicated that, “in addition to the negative duty of non-interference, the State has a positive obligation to put in place an appropriate legislative and administrative framework to guarantee effective pluralism and diversity.” Also, when determining that the State had a positive obligation to ensure an appropriate legislative and administrative framework to guarantee effective pluralism, the Court referred to Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)2 of the Council of Ministers on media pluralism and diversity of media content, reaffirming that: “In order to protect and actively promote the pluralistic expressions of ideas and opinions as well as cultural diversity, member States should adapt the existing regulatory frameworks, particularly with regard to media ownership, and adopt any regulatory and financial measures called for in order to guarantee media transparency and structural pluralism as well as diversity of the content distributed”. Case of Centro Europa 7 S.R.L. and Di Stefano v. Italy [Grand Chamber], (No.38433/09), Judgment of June 7, 2012, paras. 129 to 134. 214 Cf. Case of Cantos v. Argentina. Preliminary objections. Judgment of September 7, 2001. Series C No. 85, para. 29, and Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, para. 399. 215 216 400. Cf. Case of Cantos v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, para. 29, and Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, para. Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru, paras. 119 to 131, and Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, paras. 173 and 218, and Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, paras. 396 and 403. 217 218 403. Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru, paras. 119 to 131, and Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, paras. 396 to Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru, para. 127 and Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, para. 400. See also, Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1970, p. 36, para. 47. 219 220 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru, para. 149, and Case of Fontevecchia and D’Amico v. Argentina, para. 44. 221 Cf. Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism, para. 34