-41- 76. In this regard, the Court has established that, according to the protection granted by the American Convention, the right to freedom of thought and expression includes “not only the right and freedom to express one’s own thoughts, but also the right and freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds.”73 In the same way as the American Convention, other international human rights instruments, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, establish a positive right to seek and receive information. 77. In relation to the facts of the instant case, the Court finds that, by expressly stipulating the right to “seek” and “receive” “information,” Article 13 of the Convention protects the right of all individuals to request access to State-held information, with the exceptions permitted by the restrictions established in the Convention. Consequently, this article protects the right of the individual to receive such information and the positive obligation of the State to provide it, so that the individual may have access to such information or receive an answer that includes a justification when, for any reason permitted by the Convention, the State is allowed to restrict access to the information in a specific case. The information should be provided without the need to prove direct interest or personal involvement in order to obtain it, except in cases in which a legitimate restriction is applied. The delivery of information to an individual can, in turn, permit it to circulate in society, so that the latter can become acquainted with it, have access to it, and assess it. In this way, the right to freedom of thought and expression includes the protection of the right of access to State-held information, which also clearly includes the two dimensions, individual and social, of the right to freedom of thought and expression that must be guaranteed simultaneously by the State.74 78. In this regard, it is important to emphasize that there is a regional consensus among the States that are members of the Organization of American States (hereinafter “the OAS”) about the importance of access to public information and the need to protect it. This right has been the subject of specific resolutions issued by the OAS General Assembly.75 In the latest Resolution of June 3, 2006, the OAS General Assembly, “urge[d] the States to respect and promote respect for everyone’s access to public information and to promote the adoption of any necessary legislative or other types of provisions to ensure its recognition and effective application.”76 79. Article 4 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter77 emphasizes the importance of “[t[ransparency in government activities, probity, responsible public administration on the part of Governments, respect for social rights, and freedom of expression and of the 73 Cf. Case of López Álvarez, supra note 72, para. 163; . Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 72, para. 77; and . Case of Herrera Ulloa, supra note 72, para. 108. 74 Cf. . Case of López Álvarez, supra note 72, para. 163; . Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 72, para. 80; and . Case of Herrera Ulloa, supra note 72, paras. 108-111. 75 Cf. Resolution AG/RES. 1932 (XXXIII-O/03) of June 10, 2003, on “Access to Public Information: Strengthening Democracy”; Resolution AG/RES. (XXXIV-O/04) of June 8, 2004, on “Access to Public Information: Strengthening Democracy”; Resolution AG/RES. 2121 (XXXV-O/05) of June 7, 2005, on “Access to Public Information: Strengthening Democracy”; and AG/RES. 2252 (XXXVI-O/06) of June 6, 2006, on “Access to Public Information: Strengthening Democracy.” 76 Cf. Resolution AG/RES. 2252 (XXXVI-O/06) of June 6, 2006, on “Access to Public Information: Strengthening Democracy,” second operative paragraph. Cf. Inter-American Democratic Charter adopted by the General Assembly of the OAS on September 11, 2001, during the twenty-eighth special session held in Lima, Peru. 77