49 excluded.”205 The Court has also indicated that social communications media play an essential role as vehicles for the exercise of the social dimension of freedom of expression in a democratic society and must, therefore, reflect the most diverse information and opinions. 206 143. In this regard, the Court has indicated that “freedom of expression may also be affected without direct State intervention. This may occur, for example, when, owing to the existence of monopolies or oligopolies in the ownership of the media, a practice is established of ‘mechanisms aimed at preventing the communication and circulation of ideas and opinions.’”207 On this point, article 12 of the Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression indicates that “[m]onopolies or oligopolies in the ownership and control of the communication media must be subject to anti-trust laws, as they conspire against democracy by limiting the plurality and diversity which ensure the full exercise of people’s right to information. In no case should such laws apply exclusively to the media. The concession of radio and television broadcast frequencies should take into account democratic criteria that provide equal opportunity of access for all individuals.”208 144. That said, freedom of expression is not an absolute right and may be subject to restrictions,209 particularly when it interferes with other rights guaranteed by the Convention.210 Given the importance of freedom of expression in a democratic society and the responsibility that this entails for the social media and for the professionals who exercise this task, the State should minimize the restrictions to information and balance, insofar as possible, the participation of the different currents in the public debate, promoting the pluralism of information. This explains the protection of the human rights of those who are faced with the power of the media, which should exercise its social function responsibly,211 and the effort to ensure structural conditions that permit a balanced expression of ideas. 212 The Court recalls that both freedom of expression and the right to honor established in the Convention, are extremely important,213 and the exercise of both these rights must be guaranteed. Thus, the prevalence of one or the other in a specific case will depend on the weighing made based on an assessment of proportionality. Resolving the conflict between certain rights requires examining each case based on its characteristics and circumstances in order to ascertain the existence and intensity of the factors on which this assessment is based. 205 Cf. Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism, para. 34. Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, para. 149, and Case of Fontevecchia and D´Amico v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2011. Series C. No 238, para. 44. 206 207 Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism, para. 56. Article 12 of the Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression. The Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression was adopted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, to support the Special Rapporteurship on Freedom of Expression, during its 108th regular session in October 2000. Similarly, in its General Comment No. 34, the Human Rights Committee reiterated “its observation in General Comment No. 10 that ‘because of the development of modern mass media, effective measures are necessary to prevent such control of the media as would interfere with the right of everyone to freedom of expression.’ The State should not have monopoly control over the media and should promote plurality of the media. Consequently, States parties should take appropriate action, consistent with the Covenant, to prevent undue media dominance or concentration by privately controlled media groups in monopolistic situations that may be harmful to a diversity of sources and views,” General Comment No. 34, para. 40. 208 Cf. Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism, para. 36, and Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, para. 117. 209 210 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina, para. 56, and Case of Mémoli v. Argentina, para. 123. 211 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, para. 117, and Case of Fontevecchia and D`Amico v. Argentina, para. 45. Cf. Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism, para. 34, and Case of Fontevecchia and D´Amico v. Argentina, para. 45. 212 213 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina, para. 51, and Case of Mémoli v. Argentina, para. 123.