56 reasons of sex, race, religion, or social condition. An equal treatment is a guarantee enshrined in the Constitution. Considerations of the Court 160. Although the Inter-American Commission did not argument the violation of Mr. López Álvarez’s right to express himself in the Garifuna language, the alleged victims, his next of kin, or representatives may argument violations based on the facts considered in the Commission’s application (supra para. 82). 161. Article 13 of the American Convention states that: 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought and expression. This right includes freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, in print, in the form of art, or through any other medium of one’s choice. 2. The exercise of the right provided for in the foregoing paragraph shall not be subject to prior censorship but shall be subject to subsequent imposition of liability, which shall be expressly established by law to the extent necessary to ensure: a) respect for the rights or reputations of others; or b) the protection of national security, public order, or public health or morals. […] 162. Article 24 of the American Convention states that [a]ll persons are equal before the law. Consequently, they are entitled, without discrimination, to equal protection of the law. 163. The Court has previously stated, regarding the content of the right to freedom of thought and expression, that it contains a double dimension: the individual one, which consists in the right to disseminate information and the social one that consists in the right to seek, receive and disseminate information and ideas of all types.112 Both aspects are equally important and must be guaranteed in full simultaneously in order to grant total effectiveness to the right to freedom of thought and expression in the terms of Article 13 of the Convention.113 164. Article 13(1) expressly enshrines the liberty to orally impart information. The Court considers that one of the mainstays of the freedom of expression is precisely the right to speak, and that the latter necessarily implies the right of people to use the language of their choice when expressing their thoughts. The expression and dissemination of thoughts and ideas are indivisible; therefore a restriction to the possibilities of spreading information directly represents, in the same measure, a limit to the right to express oneself freely.114 112 Cf. Case of Ricardo Canese. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 77; Case of Herrera Ulloa. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 108, and Case of Ivcher Bronstein, supra note 109, para. 146. 113 Cf. Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 112, para. 80; Case of Herrera Ulloa, supra note 112, para. 111, and Case of Ivcher Bronstein, supra note 109, para. 149. 114 Cf. Case of Palamara-Iribarne, supra note 15, para. 72; Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 112, para. 78, and Case of Herrera Ulloa, supra note 112, para. 109.