CONCLUSION This opinion is emitted, therefore, because the signatories disagree with what was decided in the Judgment, as regards both the purpose of the dispute referred to, and the weighing up that the deliberation of the purpose required. And this relates not only to the interpretation and application to the case of Articles 13 of the Convention, but also of Article 9 of this instrument. In sum, in this opinion, we are not maintaining that the Convention does not establish the possibility of imposing sanctions in cases such as this one, but rather that it also includes the alternative of considering such sanctions excessive or disproportionate and, even, inadmissible, which is the opinion we affirm. And, when issuing this dissenting opinion, particular note is taken of the fact that the Court affirmed in another case, “that the first time it referred to the right to freedom of expression, it underscored that ‘the profession of journalism […] involves, precisely, seeking, receiving and distributing information,’” that “[t]hus, the exercise of journalism requires an individual to become involved in activities that are defined by or encompassed in the freedom of expression guarantee in the Convention,” that “contrary to other professions, the professional exercise of journalism is an activity specifically guaranteed by the Convention and ‘cannot be differentiated from freedom of expression; to the contrary, both elements are evidently interrelated, because the professional journalist is not, and cannot be, anything else than a person who has decided to exercise freedom of expression continuously, steadfastly, and for remuneration.’” 415 In that case two journalists claimed the protection of Article 13 and also, closely related to this, of Article 9, both of the Convention. In this case, a journalist and his father are involved, the former being also the Managing Director of La Libertad, a twice-monthly newspaper of San Andrés de Giles, founded in 1945. Thus, the case does not concern only the right to freedom of thought and expression of two individuals, but also the situation of a local and regional newspaper. Manuel E. Ventura Robles Judge Eduardo Vio Grossi Judge Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot Judge Pablo Saavedra Alessandri Secretary 415 Case of Fontevecchia and D`Amico v. Argentina, supra, para. 46, citing Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 American Convention on Human Rights), supra, paras. 72 to 74, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia, supra, para. 140. 13