DISSENTING OPINION OF

                 MM. F. MARTINEZ AND I. CABRAL BARRETO

      To our regret, we are unable to share the view of the majority

of the Commission that the measures against the applicant association,

taken as a whole, amount to a violation of Article 10 of the Convention

(paras. 48-51).  We consider in addition that a distinction should be

drawn between the seizure of issue No. 267 of "Bluf!" and its

subsequent withdrawal from circulation.

      With regard to the seizure of issue No. 267 of "Bluf!", we note

that by classifying its quarterly survey as "confidential", the B.V.D.

had clearly indicated that it objected to its further distribution.

We accept that the prevention of imparting information so classified,

such as the information contained in issue No. 267, constituted a

pressing social need and that the seizure of this issue could therefore

reasonably be regarded as necessary in a democratic society in the

interest of national security.

      As to the subsequent withdrawal from circulation, the same

grounds, which justified the seizure of the issue of "Bluf!", also

justify the withdrawal from circulation.  The fact that the editors of

"Bluf!", having managed to reprint the issue during the night of

29 to 30 April 1987, could distribute a certain number of copies in the

streets of Amsterdam on 30 April 1987 does not change this

justification.  Within their margin of discretion the Government were

free to consider that the risks involved in handing out pamphlets in

the street would not justify the effort and expenses of stopping it,

especially as much of the distribution must have taken place before the

authorities were informed about it.

      We therefore consider that there has been no violation of

Article 10 of the Convention, either in respect of the seizure or in

respect of the withdrawal from circulation.

                              APPENDIX I

                        HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS

Date                                    Item

_______________________________________________________________________

4 May 1988                              Introduction of application

22 May 1990                             Registration of application

Examination of admissibility

6 March 1991                            Commission's decision to

                                        invite the Government to

                                        submit their observations on

                                        the admissibility and merits

                                        of the application

6 June 1991                             Government's observations

28 June 1991                            Applicant association's

                                        observations in reply

23 October 1992                         Commission's decision to

                                        grant the applicant

                                        association legal aid

29 March 1993                           Commission's decision to

                                        declare the application

                                        admissible in respect of the

                                        applicant association's

                                        complaint under Article 10

                                        of the Convention

Examination of the merits

29 March 1993                           Parties invited to submit

                                        further observations on

                                        the merits

7 May 1993                              Applicant association's

                                        further observations

24 May 1993                             Government's further

                                        observations

31 August 1993                          Commission's deliberations

                                        on the merits and final vote

9 September 1993                        Adoption of the Report