HURBAIN v. BELGIUM JUDGMENT or alteration of all or part of an archived article which contributes to the preservation of memory, especially if, as in the present case, the lawfulness of the article has never been called into question. 186. Lastly, although the freedom of expression protected by Article 10 of the Convention is not absolute, including when it comes to media coverage of matters of public interest, and regard being had to all the foregoing considerations, the Court considers that the national authorities must nevertheless be particularly vigilant in examining requests, grounded on respect for private life, for removal or alteration of the electronic version of an archived article whose lawfulness was not called into question at the time of its initial publication. Such requests call for thorough examination. (ii) Article 8 and protection of the “right to be forgotten” 187. The Court observes that the reasoning of the national courts in the present case focused on the “right to be forgotten” claimed by Doctor G. However, the concept of a “right to be forgotten” has been interpreted in a variety of ways. In this context the Court must clarify, from the standpoint of the Convention, the scope of the claims arising out of that “right” for the purposes of the present case. 188. The Court reiterates at the outset that the concept of “private life” is a broad term not susceptible to exhaustive definition (see S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 66, ECHR 2008). Besides finding in numerous cases that the right to private life under Article 8 covers the physical and psychological integrity of a person and can therefore embrace multiple aspects of a person’s identity, such as gender identification and sexual orientation, name or elements relating to a person’s right to his or her image (see M.L. and W.W. v. Germany, cited above, § 86), the Court has also made clear that private life extends to activities of a professional or business nature (see Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992, § 29, Series A no. 251-B) and to the right to live privately, away from unwanted attention (see Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 95, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts)). Article 8 of the Convention also protects a right to personal development, and the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and the outside world (see S. and Marper, cited above, § 66). There is therefore a zone of interaction of a person with others, even in a public context, which may fall within the scope of “private life” (see Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés, cited above, § 83; P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, § 56, ECHR 2001-IX; and Sõro v. Estonia, no. 22588/08, § 56, 3 September 2015). 189. With more particular reference to the right to respect for one’s reputation, the Court has held that a person’s reputation, even if that person is criticised in the context of a public debate, forms part of his or her personal identity and psychological integrity and therefore also falls within the scope 64