A/HRC/44/49 of the Covenant, and of the Declaration 20 years before it, believed it essential to guarantee expression. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has echoed this essential principle connecting expression to opinion: Freedom of expression is a cornerstone upon which the very existence of a democratic society rests. It is indispensable for the formation of public opinion. … It represents, in short, the means that enable the community, when exercising its options, to be sufficiently informed. Consequently, it can be said that a society that is not well informed is not a society that is truly free.71 60. In a nutshell, the premise underlying freedom of opinion and expression strongly supports appropriate public health responses to COVID-19. The freedom to share information and ideas empowers individuals and communities, human development and democratic self-governance. In certain circumstances, information saves lives. By contrast, lies and propaganda deprive individuals of autonomy, of the capacity to think critically, of trust in themselves and in sources of information, and of the right to engage in the kind of debate that improves social conditions. Worst of all, censorship can kill, by design or by negligence. These are the principles that have led States, in multiple instruments across human rights law and the political organs of the United Nations, to emphasize government’s obligation to enable, promote and protect robust and independent media and provide reliable information to the public, which extends to affirmative government information strategies concerning voting, health and other essential services and fundamental rights. 61. Public health authorities worldwide have called for social distancing and other difficult measures to ensure that health systems have the capacity to care for the sick. This is a determination made on the basis of science and experience in public health. In order for it to work – in order for the public, generally speaking, to consent to such hardships – individuals must trust that the information the orders are based on are rooted in evidence and commitment to the public’s interest. An environment dominated by censorship, the root of which is distrust of the public’s capacity to think critically, is toxic to public support. By contrast, an approach that treats all members of the public as capable of understanding complicated information, that treats them as partners in an uncertain and frightening moment in global history, is conducive to the kind of social solidarity necessary for turning the tide against exponential infection growths, and ultimately giving health authorities the space and time to develop the kinds of interventions that can protect public health for the long term. 62. The present report will not include a step-by-step set of recommendations as is typical. Instead, it contains a plea to all Governments to treat those within their jurisdictions – and indeed, given the global nature of the pandemic, those without – with the dignity and respect demanded by international human rights law. In moral terms, that requires an attitude of democratic participation, and a willingness to engage the public with generosity and understanding, in the hard steps that individuals are being asked to take: separation from loved ones, lonely deaths, loss of employment, education and social intercourse, and the deprivation of cultural or religious activities that help billions of people enjoy meaningful lives. 63. In legal terms, ensuring the dignity and respect owed all individuals entails: (a) Being honest with people and giving them access to information in way they can consume, in a way that promotes non-discrimination; (b) Enabling all individuals genuine access to the tools of communication necessary to learn about the public health crisis and the steps necessary to protect themselves and, if they are health-care workers (formally or informally), to care for others; 71 18 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-5/85 of 13 November 1985, para. 70.