developed the various areas of protection of private life, noting that although the American Convention recognizes this right to every person, its level of protection decreases as with the importance that a person’s activities and functions may have for a debate of general interest in a democratic society. It noted that to resolve the conflict between the right to a private life of a public official and the right to freedom of expression, in the first place, it is necessary to verify whether or not there really was damage to the right allegedly affected. This damage is not present in those cases in which the information disseminated is already in the public domain or if the person gave tacit or explicit permission to publish this information, since in these cases there is no legitimate expectation of privacy. Second, any claim for alleged violation of privacy should compel the judge to consider the information allegedly disclosed in the context in which it occurred. Third, the decisive factor in resolving this conflict is the public relevance of the information. In this regard, relevant information is public when: a) in any way, despite having a component that involves private life, it is information that has to do with the functions that person carries out, b) it refers to the noncompliance of citizen’s legal obligation, c) it is important information regarding trust in an official; and d) it refers to the competence and capabilities of an official to perform his or her duties. 18. In this case, the Commission held that the restriction of the right to freedom of expression was based in the law, specifically in Articles 19 of the National Constitution of Argentina and Article 1071 bis of the Civil Code of Argentina. Moreover, the restriction heeded to the purpose allowed by Article 13(2) of the American Convention, which is the protection of respect for the rights or reputations of others, given that judicial decisions analyzed, sought to protect the right to private life of former President Menem. However, the sanction imposed on the alleged victims was unnecessary, since the journalists were sentenced to indemnify the President for publishing information that was already in the public domain and that was of public interest as it involved: a) the possible use of State power for private means on behalf of the President of the Nation; b) the possible unjust enrichment of a State representative; c) the possible existence of death threats against the President’s child, and d) the noncompliance with the legal obligation of the former president to recognize the child, an act that is not freely chosen by a parent. 19. Moreover, the Commission held that, according to the information contained in the magazines, from that provided in the international proceeding and from viewing the images, it is evident that the five photographs that illustrate the journalistic question at hand were taken with the consent or knowledge of he who is said to be the aggrieved party and therefore did not require express prior authorization to be published. It would be unreasonable to argue that the media must seek the consent of the President in order to distribute his I mage when taken under the circumstances such as in this case. Involving the President of the Nation, popularly elected public official, who occupies the highest ranking executive position in direction of a country cannot, does not imply an expectation of protection regarding all the events that occur in the forum of social relations or in those that evolve in public contexts or that may be observed by others, despite not being of a public nature or no interest in being disclosed. Taking into account the context in which the photographs were taken, the contents thereof, and the public persona to which the images make reference, the Commission considered that the publication of the images did not constitute an arbitrary interference with the right to private life of Mr. Menem. 20. Finally, the Commission indicated that the civil sanction had a noticeable effect on the alleged victims’ right to freedom of expression. The judicial sentence had the 8