those involved in a public debate, and refrain from pure sensationalism. 228 Furthermore, the European Court has indicated that the practice of responsible and ethical journalism is of special relevance in contemporary society where the media not only inform but can also suggest, by the way in which they present the information, how it is to be assessed. 229 123. Freedom of expression is not an absolute right. This freedom may be subject to conditions and even limitations; 230 in particular when it interferes with other rights guaranteed by the Convention. 231 Article 13(2) of the Convention, which prohibits prior censorship, also establishes the possibility of claiming the subsequent imposition of liability for the abusive exercise of this right, even to ensure “respect for the rights or reputations of others” (subparagraph (a) of Article 13(2)). These limitations are exceptional in nature and should not prevent, beyond what is strictly necessary, the full exercise of freedom of expression and become a direct or indirect mechanism of prior censorship. 232 Thus, the Court has established that liability may be imposed subsequently, if the right to honor and reputation has allegedly been harmed. 124. Article 11 of the Convention establishes that everyone has the right to have his honor respected and his dignity recognized. The Court has indicated that the right to honor “recognizes that everyone has the right to have his honor respected, prohibits any unlawful attack on honor or reputation, and imposes on State the duty to provide legal protection against such attacks. In general, the Court has indicated that the right to honor is related to self-esteem and self-worth, while reputation refers to the opinion that others have of a person.” 233 125. Article 11(2) of the Convention prohibits arbitrary or abusive interference in the private life of an individual or unlawful attacks on his honor and reputation by private third parties or public authorities. 234 Thus, it is legitimate for the person who considers that his 228 Cf. ECHR, Novaya Gazeta and Borodyanskiy v. Russia, no. 14087/08, § 37, 28 March 2013. In this decision, the European Court indicated the following: “[i]n this respect the Court reiterates that Article 10 does not guarantee wholly unrestricted freedom of expression to the press, even with respect to coverage of matters of serious public concern. While enjoying the protection afforded by the Convention, journalists must, when exercising their duties, abide by the principles of responsible journalism, namely to act in good faith, provide accurate and reliable information, objectively reflect the opinions of those involved in a public debate, and refrain from pure sensationalism.” Similarly, see: Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [Grand Chamber], no. 49017/99, § 78, ECHR 2004-XI, and Stoll v. Switzerland [Grand Chamber], no. 69698/01, § 103, ECHR 2007-V. 229 Cf. ECHR, Stoll v. Switzerland [Grand Chamber], no. 69698/01, § 104, ECHR 2007-V, and Novaya Gazeta and Borodyanskiy v. Russia, no. 14087/08, § 42, 28 March 2013. In these decisions, the European Court stated that: “[t]hese considerations play a particularly important role nowadays, given the influence wielded by the media in contemporary society: not only do they inform, they can also suggest by the way in which they present the information how it is to be assessed. In a world in which the individual is confronted with vast quantities of information circulated via traditional and electronic media and involving an ever-growing number of players, monitoring compliance with journalistic ethics takes on added importance.” 230 Cf. Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 of the American Convention on Human Rights), supra, para. 36, and Case of Fontevecchia and D’Amico v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2011. Series C No. 238, para. 43. 231 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina, supra, para. 56, and Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, para. 48. 232 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 120, and Case of Fontevecchia and D’Amico v. Argentina, supra, para. 43. 233 Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 27, 2009. Series C No. 193, para. 57, and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 286. 234 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006 Series C No. 148, para. 194, and Case of Fontevecchia and D’Amico v. Argentina, supra, para. 48 50