66 base their opinions,284 and they must do this with even greater diligence to that used by private individuals, owing to their high office, and the extensive scope and eventual effects that their statements may have on certain sectors of the population, and to avoid the citizens and other interested parties receiving a manipulated version of certain facts. 285 In addition, they should take into account that, as public officials, they have a duty to guarantee the fundamental human rights and, therefore, their statements cannot disregard such rights286 or constitute forms of direct or indirect interference or harmful pressure on the rights of those who are trying to contribute to the public debate by expressing and imparting their thoughts. This duty of special care is particularly heightened in situations of increased social conflict, alterations of public order and social or political polarization, due precisely to the series of risks entailed for certain individuals or groups at a given time. 196. Furthermore, the Court notes that, of the statements provided in this case, only one mentioned the purpose declared in Communication No. 0424 and Resolution No. 002; namely, the protection of media plurality, while most of the others coincided in citing the other purposes. This allows the Court to conclude that the declared purpose was not the real one and that it was only offered to give an appearance of legality to the decisions. 4. Conclusion concerning the right to freedom of expression 197. Therefore, the Court concludes, as it has in other cases,287 that the facts of the instant case involved a misuse of power because the State used its lawful authority to try and align the communications outlet’s editorial line with the government. This assertion is derived from two main conclusions that this Court was able to reach based on the above information; namely, that the decision had been taken previously and that it was based on the displeasure caused by RCTV’s editorial line, added to the context of the “deterioration in the protection of freedom of expression” that has been proved in this case (supra para. 61). 198. Furthermore, this Court considers it necessary to emphasize that the misuse of power declared herein had an impact on the exercise of freedom of expression, not only of the executives and employees of RCTV, but also on the social dimension of this right (supra para. 136); that is, on the population that was deprived of access to the editorial line that RCTV represented. Indeed, the real purpose sought was to silence voices that were critical of the government, which constitute, together with pluralism, tolerance and the spirit of openness, the requirements for a democratic debate, which is exactly what the right to freedom of expression seeks to protect. 199. Consequently, the Court finds it proved that, in this case, there was an indirect restriction of the exercise of the right to freedom of expression by measures aimed at preventing the communication and circulation of ideas and opinions, when the State decided that it would reserve to itself the portion of the spectrum and, therefore, prevent the participation in the administrative procedures for the adjudication of the titles or the renewal of the concession of a media outlet that expressed opinions that were critical of the government. On this basis, the Court declares the violation of Article 13(1) and 13(3) in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention to the detriment of Marcel Granier, Peter Bottome, Jaime Nestares, Inés Bacalao, Eladio Lárez, Eduardo Sapene, Daniela Bergami, Miguel Ángel Rodríguez, Soraya Castellano, María Arriaga and Larissa Patiño. 284 Cf. Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela, para. 139. 285 Cf. Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela, para. 139. 286 Cf. Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela, para. 139. 287 Case of Camba Campos et al. v. Ecuador, para. 219.