specific case if the information in question was or is not of public interest or contributed to the general debate. To the contrary, in its decision the Supreme Court referred to the alleged privacy issues in isolation from the problems of public interest arising from them and which form the main aspect of the notes into question. That same decontextualization is reflected in a majority opinion in the decision of the Civil Chamber, where after stating that in case of doubt between freedom of expression and privacy in the case of the official, the decision was resolved in favor of the privacy of the public official, holding: [o]n the other hand, it refers to the alleged fortune acquired by representative Meza, the existence and scope of political favors, which if true is despicable and worthy of being known by the public. This is not the private life to which I refer and which deserves protection because if the President was mishandling public funds it should be judged, and if a representative is unduly enriched as well. Instead, I believe that there is not sufficient public interest to justify the dissemination of current facts related to the emotional life of both and, 53 especially, with the possible presence of a child that is the fruit of that relationship [...]. * 67. In relation to the five photographs that illustrate the notes in question, wherein Mr. Menem appears with his child, the Court recalls that the protection under the American Convention to private life extends to other areas that are specifically named in this norm. 54 Although the right to self-image is not expressly stated in Article 11 of the Convention, images or personal photos are, of course, one of the elements included within the scope of protection of private life. 55 Also, photography is a form of expression that falls within the scope of protection under Article 13 of the Convention. 56 The photograph does not only endorse or lend credence to information provided by means of writing, but it holds in itself important content and expressive, communicative and informative value; in fact, in some cases, images can express and report equal or greater impact than the written word. Therefore, their protection becomes important at times when audiovisual means are predominant. However, for this reason and for the content of personal and intimate information with images, its potential to affect a person's private life is very high. 68. The Court concluded that the issue reported in the articles that accompanied the photographs related to the highest elected authority in the country and were of the public’s interest (supra paras. 60 to 62). The Court finds that the images were primarily aimed at supporting the existence of the relationship between Mr. Menem and Mrs. Meza and Carlos Nair Meza, supporting the credibility of the written word and thereby drawing attention to large sums and costly gifts, as well as to the possible existence of favors and actions, on the behalf of the former President in favor of those portrayed in the images that were published. Thus, the images represent a 53 Cf. Judgment of March 11, 1998 of the Chamber H of the the National Court on First Instance on Civil Matters of the Federal Capital, supra note 17, folios 386 and 387. 54 Cf. Case of Tristán Donoso V. Panamá, supra note 35, para. 55, and Case of Escher et al. V. Brasil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 6, 2009. Serie C No. 200, para. 114. 55 Similarly, Cf. TEDH, Schussel v. Austria, Decisión sobre Admisibilidad, February 21, 2002, para. 2, and Case of Von Hannover v. Germany, supra note 42, para. 50. 56 Cf. TEDH Case of Von Hannover v. Germany, supra note 42, para. 59, and Case of MGN Limited v. The United Kingdom, supra note 46, para. 143. 23