specific case “should be assessed in light of the standards for freedom of expression that existed in 2005, and not those that exist in 2019.” Considerations of the Court 75. The right to freedom of thought and expression is recognized in Article 13 of the Convention. In addition, Article 4 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter, an interpretive instrument of the OAS Charter and of the Convention itself, considers this as a fundamental component of democracy.51 76. The Court has previously indicated in relation to the content of freedom of thought and expression that those who are protected by the Convention have the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, as well as to receive and know the information and ideas disseminated by others.52 Consequently, freedom of expression has both an individual and a social dimension: It requires, on the one hand, that no one be arbitrarily limited or prevented from expressing his own thoughts. In that sense, it is a right that belongs to each individual. Its second aspect, on the other hand, implies a collective right to receive any information whatsoever and to have access to the thoughts expressed by others.53 77. Furthermore, the Court reiterates that: [T]he different regional systems for the protection of human rights and the universal system agree on the essential role played by freedom of expression in the consolidation and dynamics of a democratic society. Without effective freedom of expression, exercised in all its forms, democracy is enervated, pluralism and tolerance start to deteriorate, the mechanisms for control and complaint by the individual become ineffectual and, above all, a fertile ground is created for authoritarian systems to take root in society.54 78. In this regard, the Court has indicated that the first dimension of freedom of expression “is not exhausted by the theoretical recognition of the right to speak or write, but also includes, inseparably, the right to use any appropriate means to disseminate thought and to allow it to reach the greatest number of persons.”55 In this respect, the expression and dissemination of thought and ideas are indivisible, so that a restriction of the possibilities of dissemination represents directly, and to the same extent, a limit to the right to freedom of expression.56 79. Regarding the second dimension of freedom of expression – namely, the social element – it should be pointed out that freedom of expression is a means of exchanging ideas and information between persons. It includes the right to try and communicate one’s point of view Article 4 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter: “Transparency in government activities, probity, responsible public administration on the part of governments, respect for social rights, and freedom of expression and of the press are essential components of the exercise of democracy.” 51 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008, Series C, No. 177, para. 53, and Case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 30, 2019. Series C No. 380, para. 94. 52 Cf. 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, November 13, 1985. Series A No. 5, para. 30, and Case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 94. 53 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, Judgment of July 2, 2004, Series C, No. 107, para. 116, and Case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra, 95. 54 Cf. Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al.) v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 5, 2001. Series C No. 73, para. 65, and Case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 95. 55 Cf. Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al.) v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 65, and Case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 96. 56 19