A/HRC/26/30 public also has a right to receive them. Were it otherwise, the press would be unable to play its vital role of ‘public watchdog’.9 23. Accordingly, all political parties and candidates should have access to the media in a fair and impartial way. As articulated in the Document of the Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), States must “ensure that the will of the people serves as the basis of the authority of government” by, inter alia, ensuring “that no legal or administrative obstacle stands in the way of unimpeded access to the media on a non-discriminatory basis for all political groupings and individuals wishing to participate in the electoral process”.10 24. The Inter-American Court on Human Rights has equally emphasized that free expression rights are the cornerstone for the debate during electoral processes, because they act: as an essential instrument for the formation of public opinion among the electorate, strengthen the political contest between the different candidates and parties taking part in the elections, and are an authentic mechanism for analyzing the political platforms proposed by the different candidates.11 25. Accordingly, the Inter-American Court has said, restrictions on political expression during electoral processes undermine the right to freedom of opinion and expression: “everyone must be allowed to question and investigate the competence and suitability of the candidates, and also to disagree with and compare proposals, ideas and opinions, so that the electorate may form its opinion in order to vote.”12 26. In a joint statement with the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Representative on Freedom of the Media, the Organization of American States Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information, the Special Rapporteur reiterated the positions of both the European and Inter-American Courts, emphasizing that free and fair elections are possible only where the electorate is well-informed and has access to pluralistic and sufficient information, and that only a diverse media environment can ensure that all viewpoints and political perspectives are aired during election campaigns.13 27. Similar wording is found in the Windhoek Declaration on Promoting Independent and Pluralistic Media (1991): “an independent, pluralistic and free press is essential to the development and maintenance of democracy in a nation.” 9 10 11 12 13 8 Thorgeirson v. Iceland, Judgment of 25 June 1992, Series A no. 239, para. 63. See also Castells v. Spain (see footnote 8); The Observer and Guardian v. UK (Spycatcher case), Judgment of 26 Nov. 1991, Series A no. 216, para. 59(b); The Sunday Times v. UK(II) (companion Spycatcher case), Judgment of 26 Nov. 1991, Series A no. 217, para. 50(b). Para. 7.8 of the Document of the Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE, 29 June 1990, as reproduced in appendix I and in 29 International Legal Materials 1305, 1308. See also the Charter of Paris, signed on 21 November 1990 by the CSCE Heads of State, endorsing democracy and reaffirming the principles set forth in the Document of the Copenhagen Meeting and the Document of the Moscow Meeting on the Human Dimension of the CSCE (3 October 1991). I/A Court H. R., Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111. paras. 88–90. Canese v. Paraguay (see footnote 11), para. 90. www.oas.org/en/iachr/expression/showarticle.asp?artID=744&lID=1.