CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE THOMASSEN

(Translation)

Along with the other members of the Chamber, I voted in favour of finding that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention in the present case .

However, I do not agree with every aspect of the Chamber ’ s reasoning, in particular the significant importance it attaches to the fact that “ the author ... failed to respect the fundamental rules of historical method in the book ” ( see paragraph 77 of the judgment ).

Over and above the fact that the Chamber does not explain which rules of historical method were applicable, in my view such rules cannot in any event be the decisive factor in determining the scope of freedom of expression. Just like anyone else, historians are entitled to freedom of expression. For this reason I also disagree with the applicants ’ submission (see paragraph 54 of the judgment) that it should be acknowledged that there are “ different approaches by the journalist and the historian ” .

In my opinion, the most decisive factor in determining the scope of freedom of expression is the importance of other interests, which may justify restrictions on any publication. While it is true that the book that was published i n the instant case was on a subject of general interest, the Chamber gave precedence to the protection of reputation, which is part of the concept of private life that is protected by Article 8 of the Convention (see paragraph 70 of the judgment). I agree with that conclusion because the book is little more than pure conjecture and constitutes a direct assault on the integrity and identity of Mr and Mrs Aubrac that robs them of their dignity . It is necessary to reaffirm respect for human dignity as one of the most important Convention values and one which historical works must also foster .