CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE DE MEYER

(Translation)

In the disputed article Mr Castells drew up a long list of murders and attacks ca rried out in the Basque Country [1] and denounced the impunity, described by him as outrageous (insultante impunidad) , enjoyed by their perpetrators [2] . He complained of the inaction of the authorities [3] , who, he alleged, had done nothing to identify them, although the same authorities had displayed great diligence "in ot her cases" (en otros supuestos) [4] . He saw this as evidence of co llusion with the guilty parties [5] and attributed responsibility for "these acts" (estas acciones) to the Government and its supporters [6] .

These were undoubtedly serious accusations [7] .

In levelling them, however, he was merely legitimately exercising his right to freedom of opinion and of expression. This right was infringed in the case before the Court because Mr Castells was prosecuted and convicted for having written and published his views on a question of general interest; in a "democratic society" it is not acceptable that a citizen be punished for doing this.

In this connection it makes no difference whether Mr Castells was right or wrong. The question of the defence of truth was not relevant in relation to his assessment of the situation [8] ; this is especially so because the murders and attacks referred to in the article really occurred and the impunity of their perpetrators does not even seem to have been denied.

It may be worth adding that as far as insults, false accusation and defamation are concerned there are no grounds for affording better protection to the institutions than to individuals, or to the Government than the oppposition [9] .

CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE PEKKANEN

In his article Mr Castells firstly enumerated a list of murders and attacks carried out in the Basque Country and stressed that they still remained unsolved and unpunished. He also evoked the involvement of various extreme right-wing organisations. From these facts he then drew the conclusion that: "Behind these acts there can only be the Government, the party of the Government and their personnel".

Mr Castells was sentenced by the Supreme Court for proffering insults of a less serious kind against the Government. The Supreme Court found inter alia that the insults proffered with the aim of political criticism had exceeded the permissible limits of such criticism and attacked the Government ' s honour. The Supreme Court was also of the opinion that the defence of truth (exceptio veritatis) was not admissible in such cases under Spanish law.

The Court attached decisive importance to the fact that the Supreme Court of Spain declared the defence of truth inadmissible for the offence in question. Unfortunately I am unable to accept this opinion. The decisive fact for a violation of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention is, in my view, that Mr Castells was punished for holding the opinion that the Government was responsible for the incidents in question and publishing it.

With regard to the question of exceptio veritatis, which is discussed at length in the judgment, I consider that it was not possible for Mr Castells to prove the truthfulness of his opinion, an opinion expressed as part of a political debate and affirming that the Government was behind the murders and attacks in question. Exceptio veritatis is therefore not relevant in the instant case. For a finding of a violation of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention it is sufficient that Mr Castells was punished for criticising the Government when he had done so in a way which should be allowed in a democratic society.