46. The Inter-American Court recalls that in its first opportunity to refer to the right to freedom of expression it emphasized that “the profession of journalism […] involves, precisely, the seeking, receiving and imparting of information. The practice of journalism consequently requires a person to engage in activities that define or embrace the freedom of expression which the Convention guarantees.” In contrast to other professions, “the practice of journalism is an activity that is specifically guaranteed by the Convention” and “the practice of professional journalism cannot be differentiated from freedom of expression. On the contrary, both are obviously intertwined, for the professional journalist is not, nor can be, anything but someone who has decided to exercise freedom of expression in a continuous, regular, and paid manner. 39 The present case involves two journalists who claim the protection of Article 13 of the Convention. 47. Moreover, the Court recalls that the statements regarding a person’s qualification to hold office or the actions of public officials in the performance of their duties are afforded greater protection, among others, so that debate in a democratic system is encouraged. Moreover, the Court has pointed out that in a democratic society political and public personalities are more exposed to scrutiny and the criticism of the public. This different threshold of protection is due to the fact that they have voluntarily exposed themselves to a stricter scrutiny. Their activities go beyond the private sphere to enter the realm of public debate. This threshold is not only based on the nature of the individual but also on the public interest inherent in the actions performed. 40 48. For its part, Article 11 of the Convention, provides that everyone has, among others, the right to private life and prohibits any arbitrary or abusive interference in the private life of persons, stating many areas such as the private life of a person’s family, home, or correspondences. The scope of privacy is characterized as being free and immune to invasions or abusive or arbitrary attacks by third parties or public authority 41 and may include, among other dimensions, the freedom to make decisions related to various areas of a person’s life, a peaceful personal space, the option of reserving certain aspects of private life, and control of the dissemination of personal information to the public. 49. In addition, Article 11(2) of the first American Convention protects the individual against arbitrary interference or possible abuse of the State. Nevertheless, it does not mean that the State meets its treaty obligations by merely refraining from such interference. Furthermore, Article 11(3) of the Convention imposes on States the duty to provide the protection of the law against those interferences. Consequently, the State has an obligation to guarantee the right to privacy through positive actions, which may involve, in some cases, the adoption of measures to ensure that private life 39 Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism, supra note 35. Serie A No. 5, paras. 72 to 74. 40 Cf. in previous drafts, Case of Herrera Ulloa V. Costa Rica, supra note 36, paras. 128 and 129, and Case of Tristán Donoso V. Panamá, supra note 35, para. 115. 41 Cf. Case of Ituango Massacres V. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Serie C No. 148, paras. 193 and 194, and Case of Tristán Donoso V. Panamá, supra note 35, para. 55. 18