30 77. In the instant case, the Commission believes that prohibiting the exhibition of the film “The Last Temptation of Christ”, which, in their opinion, is a work of art with religious content, violated Article 12 of the Convention. This prohibition was based on a series of consideration that interfere improperly with freedom of conscience and religion. The State believes that the right embodied in this article was not affected, since it considers that the right of individuals to maintain, change, profess and disseminate their religions or beliefs was not violated by prohibiting the exhibition of the film. The Court must determine whether Article 12 of the Convention was violated by prohibiting the exhibition of this film. 78. The judgment of the Court of Appeal of Santiago of January 20, 1997, confirmed by the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile on June 17, 1997, indicated that: In the film, the image of Christ is deformed and diminished, to the utmost. In this way, the problem is posed of whether it is possible, in the name of freedom of expression, to destroy the sincere beliefs of a great many people. The Constitution seeks to protect the individual, his institutions and his beliefs, because these are the most central elements for the individual to participate and coexist harmoniously in a pluralist world. Pluralism does not mean denigrating and destroying the beliefs of others, whether they are a majority or a minority, but assuming them as a contribution to the interaction of society, which is based on respect for the essence and context of the ideas of others. No one doubts that the greatness of a nation can be measured by the attention it gives to the values that allowed it to exist and grow. If these are neglected [or] abused, as the image of Christ is deformed and abused, the nation is endangered, because the values on which it is based are disregarded. Attending to the need for information or expression is closely related to the truth of the facts and, consequently, the historical distortion of a fact or a person ceases to be information or expression. Accordingly, the judges believe that the right to emit an opinion is the right to describe a reality but never to deform it, reinventing it.19 It was based on these considerations that this Court of Appeal, in a judgment confirmed by the Supreme Court of Justice, prohibited the exhibition of the film “The Last Temptation of Christ”. 79. According to Article 12 of the Convention, the right to freedom of conscience and religion allows everyone to maintain, change, profess and disseminate his religion or beliefs. This right is one of the foundations of democratic society. In its religious dimension, it constitutes a far-reaching element in the protection of the convictions of those who profess a religion and in their way of life. In this case, however, there is no evidence to prove that any of the freedoms embodied in Article 12 of the Convention have been violated. Indeed, the Court understands that the prohibition of the exhibition of the film “The Last Temptation of Christ” did not impair or deprive anyone of their right to maintain, change, profess or disseminate their religion or beliefs with total freedom. 80. In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State did not violate the right to freedom of conscience and religion embodied in Article 12 of the American Convention. 19 cf. annex II: copy of the judgment of January 20, 1997, of the Court of Appeal of Santiago, admitting the remedy for protection filed by Sergio García Valdés, Vicente Torres Irarrázabal, Francisco Javier Donoso Barriga, Matías Pérez Cruz, Jorge Reyes Zapata, Cristian Heerwagen Guzmán and Joel González Castillo, in the name of Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church and themselves, and annulling the administrative decision of the Cinematographic Classification Council, adopted on November 11, 1996, para.18.