136. The Commission stated in its Merits Report that the State violated Article 13 of the Convention when its agents attacked Mr. Vélez Restrepo “with the intention and the result of obstructing his journalistic work” “of video recording and subsequently reporting the abuses of power by the National Army.” The representative indicated that he “agree[d] fully with the Inter-American Commission” regarding the alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention. In this regard, the State acknowledged its responsibility “for the violation of the individual dimension of the right to freedom of thought and expression” to the detriment of Mr. Vélez Restrepo “because the attacks that occurred on August 29, 1996, interrupted the victim’s work as a journalist, thus violating his right to seek information.” 137. The Court’s case law has provided the right to freedom of thought and expression established in Article 13 of the Convention with wide-ranging content. The Court has indicated that this article protects the right to seek, to receive and to impart ideas and information of all kinds, as well as to receive and to obtain the information and ideas disseminated by others.154 The Court has indicated that freedom of expression has an individual dimension and a social dimension, from which it has derived a series of rights that are protected by this article.155 This Court has stated that both dimensions are equally important and must be fully guaranteed simultaneously to give total effects to the right to freedom of expression as established in Article 13 of the Convention.156 138. The first dimension of the right to freedom of expression encompasses the right to use any appropriate medium to disseminate opinions, ideas and information and allow them to reach the greatest number of persons. In this regard, expression and dissemination are inseparable, so that a restriction of the possibilities of dissemination represents directly, and to the same extent, a limitation of the right to free expression. 157 Regarding the second dimension of freedom of expression, the social aspect, the Court has indicated that freedom of expression also entails the right of everyone to know the opinions, reports and news expressed by third parties. For the ordinary citizen, the right to know other opinions and the information that others have is as important as the right to impart their own. 158 Hence, it is based on both dimensions that freedom of expression requires that no one may be arbitrarily impaired or impeded from expressing his own thoughts and, therefore, represents a right of each individual, but also entails a collective right to receive any information and to know the expression of the thought of others.159 139. The Court has established that violations of Article 13 of the Convention may take different forms, according to how they produce a denial of freedom of expression or involve 154 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). Advisory Opinion OC-5/85 of November 13, 1985. Series A No. 5, para. 30, and Case of Fontevecchia and D’Amico v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2011. Series C No. 238, para. 42. 155 Cf. Case of “the Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al.) v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 5, 2001. Series C No. 73, para. 74, and Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 108. 156 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, para. 149, and Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, para. 111. 157 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 147, and Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, para. 109. 158 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 148, and Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, para. 110. 159 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 146, and Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, para. 108. 43