28 cinematographic films and, therefore, determines the acts of the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. 73. In the light of the foregoing considerations, the Court declares that the State violated the right to freedom of thought and expression embodied in Article 13 of the American Convention, to the detriment of Juan Pablo Olmedo Bustos, Ciro Colombara López, Claudio Márquez Vidal, Alex Muñoz Wilson, Matías Insunza Tagle and Hernán Aguirre Fuentes. IX ARTICLE 12 FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE AND RELIGION The Commission’s arguments 74. With regard to Article 12 of the Convention, the Commission alleges that: a. “The prohibition of access to this work of art with a religious content is based on a series of considerations that interfere improperly with the freedom of conscience and religion of the [alleged] victims” and of the rest of the inhabitants of Chile, which violates Article 12 of the Convention; b. Recognition of freedom of conscience is based on recognition of the human being as a rational and autonomous being. The protection of the right to this freedom is the basis of the pluralism necessary for harmonious coexistence in a democratic society, which, as any kind of society, is made up of individuals of different convictions and beliefs; c. According to Article 12 of the Convention, “the State must take and provide the necessary measures so that those who publicly profess their beliefs, may conduct their rites and proselytize within the limits that may reasonably be imposed in a democratic society”. This norm requires that the State abstain from interfering in any way in the adoption, maintenance or change in their personal convictions of a religious or other nature. The State may not use its authority to protect the conscience of certain individuals; d. In this case, state interference does not refer to the exercise of the right to manifest and practice religious beliefs, but to access to the classified exhibition – subject to age restrictions and the payment of an entrance fee – of the audiovisual version of an artistic work with a religious content; e. The state interference affected those who have beliefs related to the religious content of the film “The Last Temptation of Christ”, because they are prevented from exercising the right to freedom of conscience by not being able to see the film and form their own opinion about the ideas expressed in it. Moreover, it affects those who belong to other creeds or who do not have religious convictions, because one creed is privileged in prejudice to the free access to information of other persons, who have the right to have access to and form their own opinion about the work; f. The organs of the Judiciary prohibited the exhibition of the film “The Last Temptation of Christ”, on the grounds that the “perception of the