adolescents,” had proposed that it was “exclusively for the moral protection of childhood and adolescence.” At the proposal of Professor Aníbal Luis Barbagelata and the Dean, Juan Carlos Patrón, the Symposium recommended the text of paragraph 4 that was the one finally included in the Convention according to which prior censorship of public entertainments was allowed “for the sole purpose of regulating access to them for the moral protection of childhood and adolescence.” 3 6. Article 8 of the draft was entitled “Right to the inviolability of the home and to honor,” and the text was as follows: “Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against arbitrary or unlawful interference with his private life, his family, his home, or his correspondence or of attacks on his honor or reputation.” Several of the participants in the Symposium referred to the matter, and Professor Barbagelata suggested that “instead of referring indirectly to the right to honor or reputation, the right to honor could be affirmed directly,” in the following terms: “Everyone has the right to honor and recognition of his dignity.” Finally the following text was approved: 1. Everyone has the right to honor and recognition of his dignity. 2. No one may be the object of arbitrary or illegal interference with his private life, his family, his home, or his correspondence, or of unlawful attacks on his honor or reputation. 3. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. 4 7. The text approved in the Symposium finally became Article 11 of the Convention, with only some amendments to the wording (“his honor respected” instead of “honor” in paragraph 1; substitution of the word “illegal” by the word “abusive” to describe the interference prohibited; characterization of attacks on honor and dignity as illegal). The change is important, because it entails the direct, rather than the indirect, recognition of the right to honor and dignity, and recognizes the right to protection against interference or attacks. 8. Thus, from both the direct examination of the Convention and the analysis of the process that led to the final adoption of Articles 11 and 13, it can be inferred that freedom of thought and expression, and the right to respect for honor and reputation and the recognition of the dignity of every person are fundamental rights of every human being, on an equal footing, and without a priori being able to assign priority or prevalence to either of them. In each case, the two rights must be weighed, taking all the pertinent facts into consideration. Limitations to rights 3 Simposio sobre el proyecto de Convención de Derechos Humanos de Santiago de Chile, supra, pp. 84 and 85. In the final text of the Convention the words “Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 2 above” were added to paragraph 4. Also, paragraph 5 was added, which contains the prohibition of any propaganda for war and any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred. In the instant case, this aspect has no significance; hence, it is not developed in the main text. However, in this footnote, it is worth pointing out that Professor Barbagelata said that he found the part of the text of the draft that referred to the safeguard “of national prestige and security” totally unsatisfactory, as it could be “an indirect way of limiting artistic freedom and freedom of thought.” He could not conceive of “a situation in which public amusements could affect national prestige and security.” Other important proposals were also made that were subsequently included in the Convention; among the most significant was the addition of paragraph (a) to Article 32 (inspired by article 72 of the Uruguayan Constitution and proposed by Professor Alberto Ramón Real), the text of which was as follows: “The enumeration of rights and guarantees included in this Convention does not preclude others that are inherent in the human personality or derived from the republican and democratic form of government” (Simposio sobre el proyecto de Convención de Derechos Humanos de Santiago de Chile, supra, pp. 164 and 165 and 227). This proposal led to what would finally be paragraph (c) of Article 29 of the Convention. 4 81. Simposio sobre el proyecto de Convención de Derechos Humanos de Santiago de Chile, supra, pp. 80 and 2