to others, but it also involves the right of everyone to know opinions, reports and news provided by others. For the ordinary citizen, the knowledge of other people’s opinions and information is as important as the right to impart their own.57 80. The Court has also understood that both dimensions are of equal importance and should be ensured simultaneously in order to give total effect to the right to freedom of thought and expression in the terms of Article 13 of the Convention.58 81. According to the Convention itself, freedom of expression is not an absolute right. Article 13(2) of the Convention, which prohibits prior censorship, establishes the possibility of the subsequent imposition of liability for the abusive exercise of this right. Restrictions must be exceptional and should not limit, beyond what it strictly necessary, the full exercise of freedom of expression and become direct or indirect methods of prior censorship.59 82. The American Convention ensures the right to freedom of expression to everyone, irrespective of any other consideration. 60 In the case of those who exercise jurisdictional functions, the Court has indicated that, owing to their functions in the administration of justice, the freedom of expression of judges may be subject to different restrictions and in a way that does not affect other persons, including other public officials.61 83. The United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary (hereinafter “the United Nations Basic Principles”) recognize that “members of the judiciary are like other citizens entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly; provided, however, that in exercising such rights, judges shall always conduct themselves in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of their office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.”62 In addition, the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct establish that “[a] judge, like any other citizen, is entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly, but, in exercising such rights, a judge shall always conduct himself or herself in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of the judicial office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.”63 Similarly, the European Court has indicated that certain restrictions to the freedom of expression of judges are necessary in all cases in which the authority and impartiality of the judiciary could be called into question.64 Cf. Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al.) v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 66, and Case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 97. 57 Cf. Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al.) v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 67, and Case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 100. 58 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 120, and Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 27, 2009. Series C No. 193, para. 110. 59 Cf. Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 114, and Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 302, para. 169. 60 61 Cf. Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 169. United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, adopted by the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders held at Milan from 26 August to 6 September 1985 and endorsed by General Assembly resolutions 40/32 of November 29, 1985, and 40/146 of December 13, 1985, Principle 8. 62 Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct adopted by the Judicial Group on Strengthening Judicial Integrity, composed of a group of chief justices, at the invitation of the United Nations Centre for International Crime Prevention and in the context of the Global Programme against Corruption, attached to resolution 2006/23 of July 27, 2006, of the United Nations Economic and Social Council, para. 4.6. 63 Cf. ECHR, Case of Wille v. Liechtenstein [GS], No. 28396/95. Judgment of October 28, 1999, para. 64, and Case of Kudeshkina v. Russia, No. 29492/05. Judgment of February 26, 2009, para. 86. 64 20