Convention. 222 For the ordinary citizen, the awareness of the opinions of others or the information that others possess is as important as the right to impart his own opinions and information. 223 Consequently, in light of both dimensions, freedom of expression requires, on the one hand, that no one be arbitrarily prohibited or prevented from expressing his own thoughts and therefore represents a right of each individual; but, on the other hand, it also involves a collective right to receive any information and to be aware of the expression of the opinions of others. 224 120. In addition, the Inter-American Court has emphasized that “the profession of journalism […] entails, precisely, seeking, receiving and imparting information. Hence, the exercise of journalism requires the individual to become involved in activities that are defined or encompassed by the freedom of expression guaranteed in the Convention.” 225 The professional exercise of journalism “cannot be differentiated from freedom of expression; to the contrary, both elements are evidently interrelated, because the professional journalist is not, and cannot be, anything else than a person who has decided to exercise freedom of expression continuously, steadfastly, and for remuneration.” 226 In this case, one of the presumed victims is a journalist who claims protection under Article 13 of the Convention. 121. Nevertheless, the Court deems it pertinent to clarify that this does not mean that journalists are exempt from responsibilities in the exercise of their freedom of expression. The abusive exercise of freedom of expression, either by a private individual or by a journalist, may be subject to the subsequent imposition of liability pursuant to Article 13(2) of the Convention. 122. Furthermore, in the context of freedom of information, this Court considers that journalists have an obligation to verify, reasonably although not necessarily exhaustively, the facts on which they base their opinions. In other words, it is valid to require fairness and diligence in crosschecking sources and seeking information. This implies the right of the community not to receive a manipulated version of the facts. Consequently, journalists have the obligation to take a critical distance from their sources and compare them with other relevant information. 227 Similarly, the European Court has indicated that freedom of expression does not guarantee unlimited protection for journalists, even in matters of public interest. Even though they enjoy the protection of freedom of expression, journalists must, when exercising their duties, abide by the principles of responsible journalism, namely to act in good faith, provide accurate and reliable information, objectively reflect the opinions of 222 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), supra, para. 33, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia, supra, para. 137. 223 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), supra, para. 32, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia, supra, para. 138. 224 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), supra, para. 30, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia, supra, para. 138. 225 Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 of the American Convention on Human Rights), supra, para. 72, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia, supra, para. 140. 226 Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 of the American Convention on Human Rights), supra, para. 74, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia, supra, para. 140. 227 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, para. 79. 49