47 “an extreme violation of both the right of each individual to express himself, but also the right of everyone to be well informed; thus affecting one of the basic conditions for a democratic society.”189 This situation can be found when there is “prior censorship, the seizing or barring of publications and, in general, any procedure that subjects the expression or dissemination of information to State control.”190 138. The Inter-American Court has emphasized that “the profession of journalism […] involves, precisely, the seeking, receiving and imparting of information. Consequently, the practice of journalism requires a person to engage in activities that are defined or encompassed by freedom of expression guaranteed in the Convention.” 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 excise freedom of expression in a continuous, regular and paid manner.”191 139. In addition, within the framework of freedom of information, the Court considers that the journalist has an obligation to verify, within reason although not necessarily exhaustively, the facts on which his information is based. 192 In other words, it is valid to demand fairness and also diligence in comparing sources and seeking information. This involves the right not to receive a manipulated version of the facts. Consequently, journalists have an obligation to keep a critical distance from their sources and compare them with other relevant information.193 Similarly, the European Court has indicated that freedom of expression does not guarantee that journalists have an unlimited protection, even in matters of public interest. “While enjoying the protection afforded by 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 those involved in a public debate, and refrain from pure sensationalism.”194 The European Court has also indicated that the exercise of responsible and ethical journalism is particularly relevant in contemporary society where the media not only inform, but can also suggest by the way in which they present the information how it is to be assessed.195 140. The Court has emphasized that freedom of expression, particularly in matters of public interest, “is a cornerstone in the very existence of a democratic society.”196 It should not only Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism, para. 54, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia, para. 139. 189 Cf. Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism, para. 54, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia, para. 139. 190 Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism, paras. 71 and 74, and Case of Mémoli v. Argentina, para. 120. 191 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, para. 79, and Case of Mémoli v. Argentina, para. 122. 192 193 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina, para. 79, and Case of Mémoli v. Argentina, para. 122. Cf. ECHR, Novaya Gazeta and Borodyanskiy v. Russia, (No. 14087/08), Judgment of March 28, 2013, para. 37. In this judgment, the European Court indicated: “[i]n this respect the Court reiterates that Article 10 does not guarantee wholly unrestricted freedom of expression to the press, even with respect to coverage of matters of serious public concern.” Similarly, see: ECHR, Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [Grand Chamber], (No. 49017/99), Judgment of December 17, 2004, para. 78, and ECHR, Stoll v. Switzerland [Grand Chamber], (No. 69698/01), Judgment of December 10, 2007, para. 103. Cf. Case of Mémoli v. Argentina, para. 122. 194 Cf. ECHR, Stoll v. Switzerland [Grand Chamber], (No. 69698/01), Judgment of December 10, 2007, para. 104, and ECHR, Novaya Gazeta and Borodyanskiy v. Russia, (No. 14087/08), Judgment of March 28, 2013, para. 42. In these judgments, the European Court indicated: “[t]hese considerations play a particularly important role nowadays, given the influence wielded by the media in contemporary society: not only do they inform, they can also suggest by the way in which they present the information how it is to be assessed. In a world in which the individual is confronted with vast quantities of information circulated via traditional and electronic media and involving an ever-growing number of players, monitoring compliance with journalistic ethics takes on added importance.” Cf. Case of Mémoli v. Argentina, para. 122. 195 196 Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism, para. 70, and Case