105. Therefore, based on all the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State is internationally responsible, in breach of its obligations to respect and guarantee, for the interception and kidnapping of Ms. Bedoya on May 25, 2000, which entailed a violation of her rights to personal integrity and personal liberty, recognized in articles 5(1) and 7 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations established in Article 1(1) of the same instrument, as well as Article 7(a) and 7(b) of the Convention of Belém do Pará. The State is also responsible for the acts of torture to which Ms. Bedoya was subjected, in violation of articles 5(2) and 11 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations contained in Article 1(1) of the same instrument, articles 7(a) and 7(b) of the Convention of Belém do Pará, and articles 1 and 6 of the ICPPT. b.2 The State’s international responsibility for the violation of Ms. Bedoya’s right to freedom of thought and expression 106. The case law of the Court has given broad content to the right to freedom of thought and expression enshrined in Article 13 of the Convention. Thus, the Court has indicated that the provision protects the right to seek and receive ideas and information of all kinds, as well as to know and receive information and ideas disseminated by others. 247 It has also indicated that freedom of thought and expression has both an individual dimension and a social dimension and, thus, has concluded that a series of rights are protected under this article. 248 The Court has stated that both dimensions are equally important and must be fully guaranteed simultaneously in order to provide full effect to the right to freedom of thought expression in the terms of Article 13 of the Convention. 249 107. The Court has also underscored that 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 he be, anything but someone who has decided to exercise freedom of expression in a continuous, regular and paid manner.” 250 The Court notes that for the media to be able to carry out its role of providing journalistic oversight, it must not only be free to impart information and ideas of public interest, but also be free to gather, collect, and evaluate such information and ideas. In his 2012 report to the United Nations Human Rights Council, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression referred to the fact that people who engage in journalism “observe and describe events, document and analyse events, statements, policies, and any propositions that can affect society, with the purpose of systematizing such information and gathering of facts and analyses to inform sectors of society or society as a whole.” 251 This means that any measure that interferes with the journalistic activities of people playing this role will inevitably obstruct the right to freedom of expression in its individual and collective dimensions. The Court will therefore proceed to analyze the two dimensions of freedom of thought and expression and how they were impacted by the aforementioned events that occurred on May 25, 2000. 108. Regarding what happened in the instant case, the Court deems it necessary to recall that on Cf. The compulsory licensing of journalists. (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 Grijalva Good v. Ecuador, supra, para. 152. 247 Cf. Case of "The Last Temptation of Christ ” (Olmedo Bustos et al.) v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment dated February 5, 2001. Series C No. 73, para. 74; and Case of Grijalva Good v. Ecuador, supra, para. 152. 248 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 Grijalva Good v. Ecuador, supra, para. 152. 249 250 173. Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, supra, paras. 72 to 74, and Case of Carvajal Carvajal et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 251 Cf. United Nations Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, A/HRC/20/17, paras. 3 and 4. 42