2 (para. 54). This is in line with the Court’s case law, as stated in the judgments rendered in the cases Herrera-Ulloa v. Costa Rica (para. 120), Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay (para. 95) and Palamara-Iribarne v. Chile (para. 79). It should also be remembered that, in accordance with the provisions of the Inter-American Democratic Charter (Article 4), freedom of expression and of the press is one of the fundamental components of the exercise of democracy. Being a right to which all individuals are entitled, the right to freedom of thought and expression may not be restricted or matched with the rights of journalists or with the exercise of the journalistic profession, as it is a right which is enjoyed by all individuals and not only by journalists through the mass media. 6. The Court has repeatedly held in its case law that this right may be subject to subsequent liability and restrictions, as provided for in Article 13 of the Convention (subparagraphs 2, 4 and 5). In this regard, the Court has pointed out that such restrictions have an exceptional nature and must not limit the full exercise of freedom of thought and expression beyond what is strictly necessary so that they do not become a direct or indirect means of prior censorship. 7. In fact, the exercise of the right to freedom of thought and expression is limited by other fundamental rights. In this regard, the right to have one’s honor respected is the main legal reference when considering such limitations. This right is specially protected by the Convention in the same Article 13, as it provides that the exercise of the right to freedom of thought and expression must “ensure respect for the rights or the reputation of others” (Article 13(2)). In much the same manner as all individuals are entitled to the right to freedom of thought and expression and not only journalists or the mass media, in accordance with the Convention, not only journalists must ensure the respect for the rights or the reputation of others, respecting the right to have one’s honor respected, but also all individuals who exercise such right to freedom of thought and expression. 8. The State must ensure to all individuals who consider that their right to have their honor respected has been impaired, the availability of the appropriate judicial mechanisms so that the pertinent responsibilities be determined and punishment be imposed. Should the State fail to do so, it would be held to have international responsibility. In this judgment, the Court has clearly established the obligations of the State regarding this matter in its capacity as guarantor of all fundamental rights. Along these lines, it is relevant that the Court has reiterated its case law, according to which the State has “a key role in trying to determine responsibilities and impose sanctions as may be necessary to achieve such purpose. Resorting to civil or criminal proceedings will depend on the considerations discussed below” (para. 75). Such is, therefore, the specific corollary of the State’s duty to ensure the rights enshrined by the Convention. 9. In the exercise of the right to freedom of thought and expression, the mass media are not the only party involved, but, certainly, an essential one. In its case law, the Court has determined that the mass media play an essential role as “vehicles for the exercise of the social dimension of freedom of expression in a democratic society.”1 Notwithstanding, the Court has ruled that, “… it is vital that [the media] are able to gather the most diverse information and opinions. The 1 Cf. Case of Herrera-Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 117.