newspaper article came from an official source and that the journalists could not be obliged to make additional verifications. I fully agree with this assertion and find it relevant to provide additional grounds to those indicated by the Court. Thus, in the case of Palacio Urrutia, the Court considered that, in the context of freedom of information, journalists do indeed have a duty to verify, in a reasonable although not necessarily exhaustive manner, the facts on which they base their information; thus, “it is valid to demand fairness and diligence in the search for information and the verification of sources.” 24. Source verification, as a necessary professional practice of journalists, is important within the specific sphere of action of this profession. However, this practice cannot become a demand for extreme meticulousness that ends up by exposing journalists to disproportionate requirements when publishing information of public interest. This task, which is inherent in the profession and must be guided by the pertinent code of ethics, is exempt from judicial control in the case of information of public interest provided by an official source. In such cases, a judge would be illegitimately assuming the function of editor. Thus, the European Court of Human Rights has indicated that “if the national courts apply an overly rigorous approach to the assessment of journalists’ professional conduct, the latter could be unduly deterred from discharging their function of keeping the public informed.” 13 25. As the judgment indicates, the protection of journalistic sources, 14 is the cornerstone of press freedom and, in general, of a democratic society, because it “enable[s] a society to benefit from investigative journalism, to strengthen good governance and the rule of law.” 15 The confidentiality of journalistic sources is, therefore, essential for the work of journalists and for the role they play of informing society on matters of public interest. 16 Although this Court has not had occasion to rule specifically on the issue of the protection of sources, insofar as it has not heard a contentious case on the topic, European case law – with which I agree – has been categoric in emphasizing that “an order of source disclosure” is contrary to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 17 26. The European Court of Human Rights has considered that the wording of Article 10 of the European Convention ‘‘leaves it for journalists to decide whether or not it is necessary to reproduce such documents [supporting their assertions] to ensure credibility. It protects journalists' right to divulge information on issues of general interest provided that they are acting in good faith and on an accurate factual basis and provide ‘reliable and precise’ information in accordance with the ethics of journalism.” 18 Thus, in light of the facts of the instant case, the recourse to one authoritative source is sufficient, and any requirement beyond this is incompatible with Article 13(2) of the Convention. Therefore, the imposition of excessive requirements and formalities on the gathering of information may have a chilling effect on the work of the press and affect its role in a democratic society. 13 ECHR. Bozhkov v. Bulgaria, No. 3316/04, April 19, 2011, para. 51. The Court considers that a source is anyone who provides information to a journalist. Cf. ECHR, Nagla v. Latvia, no. 73469/10, Judgment of July 16, 2013, and Committee of Ministers of the Councill of Europe, Recommendation No. R(2000) 7 to member states on the right of journalists not to discloses their sources of information. “Definitions.” 14 15 Cf. UNESCO, General Conference, 37 C/61, of November 7, 2013, para. 12. See also, ECHR, Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GS], no. 17488/90, Judgment of March 27, 1996, para. 39, and Becker v. Norway, no. 21272/12, Judgment of October 5, 2017, para. 65. Cf. IACHR, “Corruption and human rights; inter-American standards,” OEA/Ser.L/V/II., of December 6, 2019, para. 210. 16 17 Cf. ECHR Cases of Becker v. Norway, 05/10/2017, para. 65, and Financial Times Ltd and Other v. The United Kingdom, para. 63. 18 ECHR, Fressoz and Roire v. France [GS], 21/01/1999, para. 54