51 essential role as vehicles for the exercise of the social dimension of this freedom in a democratic society; thus, it is essential that they reflect the most diverse information and opinions. 222 The Court agrees with the Commission that, in general, the media are organisations of people who have assembled to exercise their freedom of expression in a sustained manner, so that, nowadays, it is unusual that a media outlet is not registered as a legal person, because the production and distribution of information requires an organizational and financial structure that responds to the requirements of the demand for information. 223 Similarly, just as labor unions are instruments for the exercise of the right to freedom of association of workers, and political parties are vehicles for citizens to exercise their political rights, the media are mechanisms for the exercise of the right to freedom of expression of those who use them as a means of imparting their ideas and information. 149. Several international courts and bodies have ruled similarly. Indeed, the Human Rights Committee, in the case of Singer v. Canada in which it examined the presumed violation of the right to equality of the owner of an English-language printing business who had been restricted from placing commercial advertisements in English outside his store in Québec based on the argument that the victim was claiming rights that belonged to his company, the Committee considered the following: The Covenant rights which are at issue in the present communication, and in particular the right of freedom of expression, are by their nature inalienably linked to the person. The author has the freedom to impart information concerning his business in the language of his choice. The Committee therefore considers that the author himself, and not only his company, has been personally affected by the contested provisions.224 150. Also, in the case of Groppera Radio AG and Others v. Switzerland, the European Court of Human Rights, when examining who could argue violations owing to the interruption of the transmission of the media outlet, considered that the shareholder of a radio station, its employees in the exercise of their work as journalists, and its audience all had a direct interest in the continued transmission of the programs, and could claim to be presumed victims.225 151. Consequently, the Inter-American Court considers that restrictions to freedom of expression frequently occur due to actions of States or individuals that affect, not only the legal person that constitutes a media outlet, but also all the natural persons, such as its shareholders or the journalists who work there, who communicate through it, and whose rights may also be violated. The Court also stresses, as affirmed by the Commission, that to determine whether a State action that affects the media outlet as a legal person also, by extension, had a real and substantial negative impact on the freedom of expression of natural persons, it is necessary to examine the role of the presumed victims within the respective media outlet and, in particular, 222 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru, para. 149, and Case of Fontevecchia and D’Amico v. Argentina, para. 44. Likewise, expert witness Morles Hernández indicated that “even if corporate organization in the field of telecommunications was merely discretional, the general rule provided by national and international practice is that, in order to exercise the right to freedom of expression, those involved organize themselves in the form of a company.” Opinion of expert witness Morles Hernández date May 5, 2014 (merits file, folio 1607). See also: Constitutional Court of Colombia. Judgment T-611 of 1992. M.P Alejandro Martínez Caballero, Fabio Morón Díaz. 223 Human Rights Committee. Case of Singer v. Canada. January 30, 1991, para. 11.2. Similarly, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression has also referred to the connection between the ownership of a media outlet and its editorial content or publications, when stating that: “States should ensure that, in addition to promoting diversity of media ownership and making financing and influence structures transparent, they educate the public about the importance of understanding how media outlets are financed, and encourage critical thinking about how editorial content is developed and how it might reflect the persuasions or biases of media owners.” See, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue. July 2, 2014. UN Doc. A/HRC/26/30, para. 68. 224 ECHR, Case of Groppera Radio AG et al. v. Switzerland, (No. 10890/84), Judgment of March 28, 1990, paras.49, 50 and 51; ECHR, Case of Glas Nadezhda Eood and Anatoliy Elenkov v. Bulgaria, (No. 14134/02), Judgment of October 11, 2007, para. 40. 225