The advisory opinion, compulsory membership in an association prescribed by law for the

practice of journalists, was requested by the Government of Costa Rica and was decided

by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on November 13 of 1985.

Why is the case important?

In the case, the applicant submit the request for an advisory opinion for the definition

of Article 13 and 29 of the American Convention of Human Rights and their compatibility with

the compulsory membership in an association prescribed by law for the practice of journalists.

An advisory opinion is an opinion issued by a court or a commission that does not have

the effect of adjudicating a specific legal case but merely advises on the constitutionality

or interpretation of a law.

In this case, the advisory opinion of the Inter-American Court defines the scope of protection

regarding the limitations of the freedom of press of journalists.

Principal facts The advisory opinion deals with the questions

if a compulsory membership in a professional association as a necessary requirement to

practice journalists in general could be allowed or if such license would violate Article 13

and 29 of the Convention.

The court advisory opinion Article 13 of the American Convention guarantees

the freedom of thought and expression and Article 29 defines how the articles of the

Convention should be interpreted.

Article 13 ensures the freedom of an individual to seek information and opinions of others

and spread its own thoughts and ideas.

Furthermore, Article 13 protects the right of society to receive information from others

as well which is known as dual aspect of the freedom.

Thus, a limitation of the freedom of thought and expression does not violate the right

of the directly affected individual but the rights of all others as well.

Due to the protection of the interchange of ideas and information among society, no one

can be excluded from assessing such media.

Every member of society must have access to the information that is being spread.

Regarding the restriction of Article 13 paragraph 2, the court clarifies that prior censorship

is always prohibited.

However, an exception can be made regarding public entertainment.

Yet, such restrictions must be established by law and the legal definition of the restriction

must be precise.

Additionally, a restriction is only possible when necessary which has to be due regarding

the needs of the democratic societies and institutions.

Article 29 clarifies that when interpreting the articles of the Convention, thus interpretations

must not preclude or dis-right or exclude or limit the rights and duties of men.

The relationship between duties and rights is defined in Article 32 of the Convention

which restricts the rights of an individual by security of all, general welfare and the

democratic society.

The Court then decided that the compulsory license of journalists would violate the freedom

of thought and expression.

In general, requiring a membership in a professional association or certain requirements for the

exercise of the journalist profession would not restrict the freedom of thought and expression.

A concept like this is often used to organize liberal profession in general and guarantee

independence of the profession.

Set high standards, for example, regarding education and could support welfare and public

order.

However, the principle of democracy demands the wide circulation of information, ideas

and opinions possible and the protection of the access of society to those.