36 State failed to comply with the commitments assumed in the above-mentioned articles of the Inter-American Convention against Torture (infra para. 128). 97. As regards the claim of the representatives of the alleged victim, in relation to the alleged violation of Article 5 of the Convention to the detriment of the next of kin of Maritza Urrutia, the Court recognizes that the situation they endured owing to the abduction and unlawful and arbitrary detention of Maritza Urrutia, caused them suffering and anguish, and, therefore, it will take this circumstance into consideration when establishing reparations. 98. In light of the foregoing, the Court declares that the State violated Article 5 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, and the obligations established in Articles 1 and 6 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture, to the detriment of Maritza Urrutia. X ARTICLE 13 (FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION) Arguments of the Commission 99. The Commission requested the Court to declare the violation of Article 13 of the Convention in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, which had also been acknowledged by the State, and indicated that: a) The right to freedom of expression includes the right to speak and to remain silent. Within this broad concept of freedom of expression, the individual has the right to express his opinions publicly or keep them to himself; b) The right to freedom of expression of Maritza Urrutia was violated by the State when she was obliged by State agents, under threat of torture and death, to record a statement that she had not written, which contained opinions that she did not share and false information about her abduction, with the express intention of covering up the crimes perpetrated by her abductors. The video was shown on two television programs, thereby forcing Maritza Urrutia to express publicly false information and opinions, which seriously harmed her self-respect; c) The individual dimension of the right to freedom of expression may be violated both when a person’s right to express himself freely is restricted and when he is obliged, through unlawful acts, to express himself publicly against his will. The act of forcing a person to make public statements against his will, harms human dignity, by denying a person the right to his own thoughts and to the exercise of his freedom of expression. In its social dimension, freedom of expression is inhibited both when information is restricted and when false declarations, which are the product of State coercion, are broadcast intentionally. Broadcasting information obtained through unlawful acts misleads society as a whole, because it presents the victim of coercion as the author of false information; and d) The right not to speak, or the right to remain silent, derives from the right to freedom of expression, because an enforced statement affects a person’s autonomous right to express himself freely. Restrictions to the free