CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 11 décembre 1990

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }    Application No. 13778/88   Thorgeir THORGEIRSON   against   ICELAND   REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   (adopted on 11 December 1990)                           TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                   page   I.     INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-17) ............................      1         A.   The application           (paras. 2-4) ......................................      1         B.   The proceedings           (paras. 5-12) .....................................      1         C.   The present Report           (paras. 13-17) ....................................      2   II.    ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   (paras. 18-47) ............      3         A.   The particular facts of the case           (paras. 18-39) ....................................      3         B.   Relevant domestic legislation           (paras. 40-47) ....................................     17   III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION (paras. 48-87) ..............     19         A.   Complaints declared admissible           (para. 48) ........................................     19         B.   Points at issue           (para. 49) ........................................     19         C.   Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention           (paras. 50-66) ....................................     19         D.   Article 10 of the Convention           (paras. 67-85) ....................................     22         E.   Recapitulation           (paras. 86-87) ....................................     25   Dissenting opinion by Sir Basil Hall ........................     26   APPENDIX I   :   The applicant's article of 7 December 1983 ...     27   APPENDIX II :   The applicant's article of 20 December 1983 ..     28   APPENDIX III:   History of the proceedings ...................     30   I.       INTRODUCTION   1.       The following is an outline of the case, as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.   A.       The application   2.       The applicant is an Icelandic citizen, born in 1933.   He is an author and resides in Reykjavík, Iceland.   Before the Commission he is represented by his lawyer, Mr.   Tómas Gunnarsson.   3.       The application is directed against Iceland.   The Government are represented by Mr.   Thorsteinn Geirsson, Ministry of Justice, as Agent.   4.       The case concerns freedom of expression and the alleged partiality of the court in proceedings in the context of allegations of police brutality in Iceland.   When the applicant learned about an incident of police brutality in 1983 he published two articles in a daily newspaper concerning these matters.   Due to the publication of these articles, criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant for defamation of character and he was subsequently found guilty in respect of the charge brought against him and sentenced to pay a fine.   The applicant considers that his case was not heard by an impartial tribunal and that his conviction amounts to an unjustified interference with his right to freedom of expression.   He invokes Article 6 and Article 10 of the Convention.   B.       The proceedings   5.       The application was introduced on 19 November 1987 and registered on 19 April 1988.   The Commission considered the case on 10 March 1989 and decided to give notice of the application to the respondent Government in accordance with Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure and to invite them to present, before 26 May 1989, their observations in writing on the admissibility and merits of the application.   6.       Having been granted an extension of the time-limit, the Government submitted their observations on 26 June 1989.   The applicant's observations in reply were submitted on 21 August 1989.   7.       Legal aid under the addendum to the Commission's Rules of Procedure was granted to the applicant on 27 July 1989.   8.       On 4 October 1989 the Commission invited the parties to appear before it at a hearing on the admissibility and merits of the case.   9.       The hearing took place on 14 March 1990.   The applicant was present in person and was represented by Mr.   Tómas Gunnarsson as counsel.   The Government were represented by their Agent Mr.   Thorsteinn Geirsson and by Mr.   Gunnlaugur Claessen as counsel.   10.       Following the hearing, the Commission declared the applicant's above complaints under Article 6 and Article 10 of the Convention admissible.   Other complaints submitted under Article 6 of the Convention were declared inadmissible.   11.       The parties were then invited to submit any additional observations on the merits of the case which they wished to make.   Such observations were submitted by the applicant on 15 May 1990.   The Government submitted further evidence on 28 June 1990 but informed the Commission on 4 September 1990 that they did not intend to submit any additional observations on the merits.   12.       After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the case.   Consultations with the parties took place between 20 March 1990 and 4 September 1990.   The Commission now finds that there is no basis upon which such a settlement can be effected.   C.       The present Report   13.      The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following members being present:                 MM. S. TRECHSEL, Acting President                   J.A. FROWEIN                   G. SPERDUTI                   A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   J.-C. SOYER                   H.G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS                   H. VANDENBERGHE              Mrs.   G. H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL              MM.   F. MARTINEZ RUIZ                   C.L. ROZAKIS              MM.   L. LOUCAIDES     14.      The text of this Report was adopted on 11 December 1990 and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   15.      The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 para. 1 of the Convention, is:   (i) to establish the facts, and   (ii) to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose a breach by the State concerned of its obligations under the Convention.   16.      The original version of the two newspaper articles appears as Appendices I and II to this Report.   A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before the Commission is attached hereto as Appendix III and the Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application as Appendix IV.   17.      The full text of the parties' submissions and the documents concerning the case are held in the archives of the Commission.   II.      ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   A.       The particular facts of the case   18.      From 1979 to 1983 a number of incidents occurred in Iceland which involved allegations of police brutality.   Thirteen such incidents were reported to the police and gave rise to investigations. In the last case, which occurred in 1983, it appeared that a journalist had been ill-treated by the police in Reykjavík.   The responsible policemen were later prosecuted and convicted.   This incident was extensively covered in the press and it caused the applicant to publish two articles about police brutality in the daily newspaper Morgunbladid on 7 and 20 December 1983 respectively.   The first article (as to the original version, see Appendix I) read as follows:   (translation)     19.      "LET US CONSIDER NOW!           An open letter to Minister of Justice Jón Helgason           Honourable Minister of Justice:       (1) Recently a problem that for several years had been bothering - if not obsessing - my mind, all of a sudden came into the spotlight of the press.   A journalist of your own very progressive party-newspaper - Tíminn - had a difficult experience and returned with some injuries from the jungle of the Reykjavík night-life.   Often the perils of the jungle and other alien regions can help us visualise the hardships that missionaries have had to endure.   This was the case with Stanley and Livingstone, even if they were preaching God's own Kingdom rather than the idea of the co-operative Utopia.       (2) In our case one of your political missionaries, journalist Skafti Jónsson, met hardship in the jungle of the night and his facial injuries have clearly been exposed in four-column pictures in the press.   Of course we are scandalised when we see this.       (3) We do not like to realise how our policemen have treated the handsome face of this journalist who tells us that he innocently was looking for his overcoat when the uniformed beasts of the aforementioned jungle attacked him.       (4) In my mind Mr.   Jónsson's case is of little importance.   But as it has caught much attention and been widely discussed, I would like to use the opportunity to point out to you that the real problem is in fact bigger and much more horrifying.       (5) The case of Mr.   Jónsson is but a top of an iceberg that news-people have brought to our attention.   Beneath, in the dark sea of silence lurks a problem nine times bigger.       (6) That is the part I should like to make you aware of, because you are Minister of Justice and thus in command of those uniformed beasts that creep around, silently or not, in the jungle of our nightly jollification.       (7) I am certainly not underestimating the hardships and pains that this young man unnecessarily has had to endure. But on the other hand Mr.   Jónsson obviously is going to recover.   The blue spots on his face will turn violet and then brown.   In due time they finally will disappear.   Mr. Jónsson shall return to his job at your newspaper and his case will be forgotten under the snow of future daily scandals that incessantly will be coming down.           Unless we use this opportunity to study the real problem.       (8) Several years ago I had to spend some weeks at the Surgery Department of our Communal Hospital.   In a room of the same corridor a boy of twenty was lying in his bed.   A promising and a charming young person.   But his paralysed condition on the other hand did not allow him to move any part of his body, except the eyes.   He was able to read with the aid of special machinery and a helping hand which would turn the pages for him.           I was told that his hopes for recovery were minimal.       (9) The boy's room-mates told me that his injuries had been caused by bouncers of a restaurant and some policemen. I refrained from believing this instantly so I inquired among the hospital staff and - Yes, right they were; there we had a victim of the Reykjavík night-squad.      (10) The picture of this paralysed youngster somehow followed me out of the hospital and I couldn't help talking about his case.   Then I found out that most people knew various stories of persons who had had a similar or even worse experience with the uniformed beasts.   Individuals had been brought back to the intellectual capacity of a new-born child as a result of choke-holds that policemen and bouncers learn and use with brutal spontaneity instead of handling people with prudence and care.   Such stories are so identical in substance and abundant that you can hardly treat them as simple lies any more.   Another thing that goes with those stories as inevitably as brutality follows stupidity is the statement that suing a policeman in such a case would be hopeless.   The investigation would take place at another department of the same police and be carried out by a troop of persons who see their duty in washing any policeman clean of all accusations.      (11) Therefore the victims of the police brutes rest in agony and many years can pass without an opportunity to discuss their problems reasonably.      (12) Now there might be one of those rare occasions.         That is the reason for this letter of mine.      (13) I have little doubt that there is something essentially wrong in a system where the persons in charge seem to disregard all justice and misinterpret their duties by allowing brutes and sadists to practise their perverted mentality - no matter who is the victim.   In my opinion the Reykjavík Chief of Police shows a stubborn attitude by refusing to release the accused policemen from their duties while the 'Jónsson case' is being investigated.   And he seems to lose little of his self-confidence, even in a case where he is facing one of your own partisans.   But we shall see.      (14) Even if Mr.   Jónsson wins his case this will be an exception and shall change nothing.   Other victims of this brutality would continue to pile up in silence as before.      (15) My opinion is that the real problem lies with a system where one policeman investigates another policeman's violations of correct professional conduct.   This opinion I share with other much more competent persons - who obviously hesitate to pronounce their opinion on this matter fearing the revenge and beatings that might follow.           The matter is all that serious.      (16) Two of your predecessors in office have received letters from me regarding these problems.   Neither of them had the courtesy to answer.      (17) Recently I have had the opportunity to observe pictures of you in the press and I have noticed their fair expression of distinct honour.   This indeed is the very kind of facial expression that anytime could easily penetrate into your character even if it originally had only been meant for the photographer.           Therefore I am writing to you as well.           And proposing my idea for the third time:      (18) Please remove all cases of police brutality from this automatic and hopeless washing-machine where they have been treated.   As long as policemen are allowed to clean up one another's filth you will never have a possibility to even consider most urgent things like character tests that policemen should pass before they are taught fatal tricks to exercise on people, or their very own responsibility in cases where they temporarily have lost control of their furiousness - all of which is the condition for a competent police force worthy of the power given to them.           But how can we get rid of the old system?      (19) You have to form a committee of trustworthy people to investigate the rumours, gradually becoming public opinion, that brutality is growing within the Reykjavík police force and being unfairly protected.   Such a committee could advertise for victims of police brutality and gather their testimonies for eventual verification.   Hopefully the committee might find out that a tiny minority of policemen are responsible.   Those individuals should be advised to look for other jobs.      (20) I assume that our police problem could be compared with the so-called 'youth-problem' in the sense that comparatively few individuals are responsible for this negative public opinion.   And those individuals would not exactly be the typical or the most intelligent ones of either group.      (21) I have seen our policemen perform many a good deed and some of the very fine people I know are policemen.   We cannot do without them.   But I owe it to the young man I met at the Communal Hospital to gather my courage and forward this proposal: let us do a cleaning so that the adventurers who choose to risk their skin in the jungle of the Reykjavík night-life in the future can at least be assured that a policeman in uniform is not among the perils of this jungle.           The other beasts will certainly do.      (22) In court you sometimes forward a secondary claim in case that your main demand will not be accepted.   Should you, Minister Helgason, fail to have this neutral investigation realised I call upon journalists (Skafti Jónsson for ex.) to start this investigation and publish the results in a book that very probably would become a bestseller.   I would at any time be prepared to participate in this job.   Yours sincerely with respect,   Thorgeir Thorgeirson"   20.      The second article (as to the original version, see Appendix II) read as follows (extract):   (translation)   21.      "STRIKE WHILE THE FLY IS SITTING ON MY NOSE...       (1) Thorgeir Thorgeirson's statement on police captain         Einar Bjarnason's behaviour in a television         programme on the evening of last December the 13th.           ...       (2) Last Tuesday, December 13th, there was a programme about the police problem on our TV.   Among the participants were two police intellectuals who somewhat lost control of the situation, according to the opinion of many spectators. The single spectator I heard excusing captain Elíason and captain Bjarnason argued that there had been only two of them and it would exactly have been the controller who was absent.           This might well be true.       (3) Towards the end of the programme captain Bjarnason, who happens to be the chairman of the Reykjavík Police Association, organised an amusing happening: after having consulted captain Elíason with much paper rattling and whispering, he started reading from a typed document containing filth about my unreliable, ever-lying person (according to this document which the police somehow had managed to have signed by a completely irrelevant person).       (4) Bjarnason could easily have got this message of his across without breaking the law on radio-broadcasting and thus risking both his honour and his job.   Many spectators have been wondering about this.           Of course.       (5) This venture can hardly be explained by the lack of control alone so I feel forced to add another article to what I had thought to be my final word about the matter a week ago (this is written Thursday the 15th and will be delivered to the newspaper on 16 December).           I have to mention my experience during the last week.       (6) Wednesday last week, i.e.   December 7th, Morgunbladid published my letter to the highest authority of justice in this country.   My request was that he immediately order a neutral investigation of the police problem instead of having the problem control itself forever.   Naturally I never expected my text to be specially applauded at police stations.       (7) A certain misunderstanding is always inevitable. Misconception has bloomed around this matter; my ideas of a writer's duty are that he should, at least sometimes, be the conscience of his vicinity, but our police officers seem to be of a totally different opinion, as only was to be expected.           No harm in that.       (8) The morning my letter to Minister Helgason appeared in the newspaper astonishingly many people phoned to me. Among them was a certain Mr.   Hermannsson who introduced himself as police sergeant of Reykjavík.   He wanted to know what case I had been writing about in my article.   I told him that the subject had been the situation in general; no isolated case.   The cases behind this situation were several hundreds at least.   Hermannsson then inquired about the name of the paralysed boy at the Communal Hospital, the one I had mentioned.   I told him, which was true, that I had probably never known the boy's name.   Then I asked Hermannsson if the police actually was investigating the matter.   His answer was yes.   I then pointed out to him that it would be a very bold thing to do in the circumstances: if the police once again was investigating a matter concerning their own affairs.   At the same time I refused to give any further testimony by telephone, except that I told him the date of my hospitalisation.   We bade farewell.     ...       (9) Time passed until Sunday.   The newspapers were full of sobbing testimonies written by policemen.   Morgunbladid of Sunday published an article by Jóhannes Jónsson, a policeman of course, who referred to the news item from Friday the 9th which meant that his manuscript would have reached the editiorial office Saturday.   This was peculiar to me, knowing that the normal waiting time of an article for Morgunbladid is something like four to six days from presentation of the manuscript to publishing day.   That is valid for us plain-clothes citizens.   In his article police officer Jónsson had the reiterated 'police-truth' to tell that 'the case Mr.   Thorgeirson had referred to' was there on page 13 of Friday's Morgunbladid.     ...      (10) Since then something has occurred, and now I must ask Mr.   Hallsson to keep his promise and publish this statement of mine.   Even though captain Bjarnason's stroke towards the end of the TV programme last Tuesday proved to be so much askew that I am not the one it hurts, I must point out how very typical and police-like his behaviour has been.      (11) What is the core of this so called 'police problem'? Well - many people think that our policemen already have attacked too many a citizen, guilty or innocent.   They have been striking far too frequently.      (12) Their recent reactions in the press have been filled with quotations from 19th century literature, which is tremendously amusing.   But older classical literature lingers behind.   They might also have been consulting the Saga of Grettir the Strong whose principle was:   The best way to endure the Bads of Life is to suffer the Worse.           Anyway that seems to be their line.      (13) This is far too pathetic a principle for a whole police force to follow if we really want people to appreciate their services.      (14) Since Tuesday many people have been phoning and expressing the opinion that the TV programme on the police problem was a disastrous document for future generations to study.      (15) -   They should have been in uniforms, someone said. Captain Bjarnason's behaviour was so typical of what gradually is becoming the public opinion of our police force in defence: bullish falsifications, illegal actions, superstition, hasted stupidity.           And what not?      (16) The title of this article is borrowed from the folklore everyone should know, about the couple hunting the fly.   It came to my mind when I was observing captain Bjarnason fighting his own inventions during the TV programme.   Should our Minister of Justice not have had time to see the programme I would like to advise him to borrow the tape still existing at the TV station.   Comical interpretations have something pathetic about them and this is a top one on what the general public more and more refers to as the 'police problem'.      (17) Comic or pathetic, the programme should be an example to show us the necessity of an impartial examination of the problem to prevent the police from repeatedly hurting themselves while investigating their own affairs in order to support a completely false image of their childlike identity.      (18) Let us stop the fight and consider the proposal I forwarded in my letter to the Minister of Justice.   We could even consider a more sarcastic idea that a friend of mine proposed:      (19) Thorgeir, he said.   Wouldn't it be an idea to have a really good pedagogical psychologist study this police aggression?           Hopefully the matter is not all that complicated.           With thanks for the publication.   Thorgeir Thorgeirson"   22.      Due to the contents of these articles, the Reykjavík Police Association requested the public prosecutor to investigate the matter.   23.      On 21 May 1984, the public prosecutor, TB, decided to send the case to the State Criminal Investigation Police (SCIP) with the request to investigate whether there might have been a violation of Section 108 of the Icelandic Penal Code (offences against state officials).   The applicant was accordingly interrogated on 18 June 1984 at the SCIP headquarters.   During this interrogation the applicant was assisted by his lawyer.   24.      On the basis of the investigation of the case, the public prosecutor, TB, issued a bill of indictment on 13 August 1985 whereby the applicant was charged with having published defamatory remarks against policemen in the two articles.   As regards the first article, the following passages were considered by the public prosecutor to be defamatory:   (translation)           "uniformed beasts" (para. 19(3) above).           "of those uniformed beasts" (para. 19(6) above).           "The boy's room-mates told me that his injuries         had been caused by bouncers of a restaurant and         some policemen.   I refrained from believing this         instantly so I inquired among the hospital staff         and - Yes, right they were; there we had a victim         of the Reykjavík night-squad" (para. 19(9) above).           "Then I found out that most people knew various         stories of persons who had had a similar or even         worse experience with the uniformed beasts.         Individuals had been brought back to the intellectual         capacity of a new-born child as a result of         choke-holds that policemen and bouncers learn and         use with brutal spontaneity instead of handling people         with prudence and care.   Such stories are so identical         in substance and abundant that you can hardly treat         them as simple lies any more" (para. 19(10) above).           "victims of the police brutes" (para. 19(11) above).           "allowing brutes and sadists to practise their         perverted mentality" (para. 19(13) above).   25.      As regards the second article, the following passage was considered to be defamatory:   (translation)           "Captain Bjarnason's behaviour was so typical         of what gradually is becoming the public opinion         of our police force in defence: bullish falsifications,         illegal actions, superstition, hasted stupidity"         (para. 21(15) above).   26.      In the indictment it was finally stated that the afore-cited "defamatory passages", which were "directed against unnamed and undesignated members of the Reykjavík police force", were considered to violate Section 108 of the Penal Code.   27.      The Chief Judge of the Criminal Court of Reykjavík assigned the applicant's case to judge PG.   He decided that the case was to be filed in the Criminal Court on 10 September 1985 and the indictment was served on the applicant the day before, summoning him to appear. At the applicant's request his arraignment was deferred to 17 September 1985.   Accordingly nobody appeared in court on 10 September 1985.   28.      The applicant's case was thus dealt with by the Criminal Court of Reykjavík presided over by judge PG on 17 September 1985. According to the Court transcripts the following happened during this session:   (translation)   "At 10 a.m. the defendant, Thorgeir Thorgeirson ..., appears in court.   He is accompanied by Tómas Gunnarsson, Supreme Court advocate.   The provisions of Section 77 para. 2 of Law no. 74/1974 are observed.   The defendant requests that the Supreme Court advocate be appointed as his defence counsel; the Supreme Court advocate accepts his appointment in court and is handed copies of all case documents.   The defendant is asked whether he wrote the article 'Let Us Consider Now' with the sub-title 'An Open Letter to the Minister of Justice, Mr.   Jón Helgason', published in the Morgunbladid 7 December 1983, and the article 'Strike While the Fly Is On My Nose', published in the same newspaper on 20 December 1983.   The defendant states that he wrote the articles.   The defendant considers that the statements described in ... the indictment are correctly quoted, but as far as he can see they are removed from their context with the remaining text.   The defendant is confronted with a statement made by him to the State Criminal Investigation Police on 18 June 1984. He accepts having made the statement.   He says it has been correctly recorded, and accepts having signed it.   The defendant is then confronted with a letter written by him to the State Criminal Investigation Police on 19 June 1984.   He accepts having written the letter.   He is then asked whether he can substantiate the statements which are quoted after him in the indictment.   The defendant says that in their context in the indictment, on which he has already commented, he neither can nor is under any obligation to substantiate the statements in question; that this is not his literary product, it is the product of the accuser.   Read, confirmed as correctly recorded.   The defendant, in consultation with his counsel, asks to be granted a period of time for acquainting himself with the case documents and for expressing further his opinion on them and the litigation.   The judge calls the defendant and his counsel to appear in court at a session on Tuesday the 24th of this month at 2 p.m."   29.      The public prosecutor did not make an appearance during this court session or when the case was brought up again on 24 September 1985.   On the latter occasion, a record was made of counsel's statement to the effect that, since the public prosecutor had not made an appearance, he considered that the judge both represented the prosecution and performed the role of judge.   For this reason he motioned that PG yield his seat as judge in the case.   In a decision rendered by PG in court the following day counsel's claims and arguments were quoted verbatim whereupon the judge stated his opinion as follows:   (translation)   "This case is not subject to prosecution and defence according to Section 130 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP), no. 74/1974. (The applicant's) motion that the judge yield his seat is unsupported by any valid arguments and totally unfounded.   The judge is neither obliged nor allowed to yield his seat."   30.      The applicant requested that this decision be summarily appealed against to the Supreme Court of Iceland, but this was denied by the public prosecutor on 26 September 1985 on the basis of Section 171 of the CCP.   31.      The applicant then complained to the Ministry of Justice which, however, by letter of 18 October 1985, found no reason to support the applicant's plea.   32.      The applicant's case was subsequently examined in the Criminal Court in six sessions conducted by judge PG during the period 9 October 1985 to 28 April 1986.   The applicant and his counsel made an appearance in court every time and the public prosecutor, TB, made an appearance every time save one during which a video taped TV programme was presented to the Court.   Documents were submitted, oral statements received and witnesses heard.   On 28 April 1986 the parties agreed that further investigation in court was not required.   Counsel was then afforded an opportunity to present a written defence and granted a period until 3 June 1986 for this purpose.   The public prosecutor declared, however, that he would make no further submissions.   33.      On 3 June 1986 the applicant submitted his written defence.   He did not dispute the fact that he was the author of the articles in question but maintained:   (translation)   "If public opinion turns sour, confidence in policemen is lost, also in policemen who never have as much as hurt a fly.   In the autumn of 1983 this loss of confidence had assumed proportions outright dangerous to public welfare. So, when the case of Skafti Jónsson emerged, I became aware of this danger.   And my oft-mentioned article published in Morgunbladid on 7 December 1983 was my reaction to this dangerous situation.   By writing the article I consider that I was performing the duty of an honourable writer who studies the spirit of the nation and reports his findings without any evasions.   This is clear to any person who is willing to read the article in its entirety using the whole of his mental faculties to perceive what is written there.     ...   But the main purpose of the article, and its conclusion, was the request to the Minister to have an investigation carried out on whether public opinion is correct or incorrect.   The article was intended to raise a lawful, urgent question.   Even though my intention was to write an article completely within the limits of the law I shall not hide the fact that I also tried to phrase the text in such a way as to elicit answers from the parties concerned.   The question, of course, was about the truthfulness of the menacing public opinion. If this was incorrect the police authorities (which alone may possess comprehensive knowledge of these matters) could be expected to react in the composed, confident and calm manner of respectable, honest souls.   The Board of the Police Association and the Chief of Police would simply have recommended to the Minister that he initiate at the earliest opportunity an impartial investigation of the matter asked for.   Such a reaction would also have calmed the public considerably, as it would have borne witness to good faith."   34.      On 16 June 1986 PG pronounced his judgment in which he found inter alia:   (translation)   "It (is) maintained that the prosecution authority did not make an appearance in court every time, and 'failed to submit a brief in the Criminal Court in support of the indictment'.   The prosecution authority thus allegedly broke off 'prosecuting its case', and therefore 'the case should be terminated or acquittal granted for that reason alone'. In this context it is also stated in the defence:   'This also has the effect that preconditions for a defence counsel's work are lacking.   After evidence has been collected in criminal court he lacks knowledge of the arguments the prosecution may employ when the case is submitted for adjudication.   Thus the conditions as regards the substance of the defence's arguments are uncertain, and answers to arguments of which the defence may have very limited knowledge are not justified or merited.   The case should be dismissed from court on these grounds alone'.   The view that the case should be dismissed or the defendant acquitted as it is not being pursued by the prosecution authority cannot be sustained since it cannot be seen to be subject to prosecution and defence according to Sections 131-136 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.   The defence also maintains that in writing the two articles the defendant was performing an author's duty to society by drawing attention to physical injuries to people caused by the police, bringing such matters to light and requesting official action to prevent them.   Such indications command little attention unless published in the media, and even that frequently goes unnoticed.   Strong words and stylistic artifices also seem necessary, as authors very well know. The defendant has been an author by profession for many years, and public authorities have acknowledged his work, i.a., by the payment of salaries.   He has conducted his work under the protection of Article 72 of the Constitution, which provides that censorship and other limitations of freedom of the press may never be enacted.   In fact the constitutional provision quoted also provides that a person may be held responsible for printed statements, a principle which never has been disputed in Icelandic law.   There are in statute law various provisions that make punishable the expression in print of certain thoughts, or the making in public of certain statements, e.g., in print.   Aside from Section 108 of the General Penal Code a reference may be made in this regard to Sections 88, 95, 121, 125, 210 and 229, and Sections 233.a to 237 of the same Code.   The defendant cannot be deemed to enjoy any privileges or a greater freedom of expression than others owing to his profession as author.   The defendant's newspaper articles were published in his name, and he has acknowledged having been their author.   The defendant was domiciled in Iceland when the articles were published in the Morgunbladid.   According to Section 15 of the Law regarding the Right of Publication, no. 57/1956, he therefore carries criminal liability and liability for damages on account of the contents of the articles.   In the indictment the statements on account of which the charges are made are considered to be directed against unnamed and undesignated members of the Reykjavík police force. Notwithstanding that Section 108 of the General Penal Code covers, as its text is phrased, offences against a specific person among public servants, it also covers offences against a definite group of public servants, cf., the Supreme Court judgment mentioned in the Supreme Court Reports vol.   LIV p. 57.   The words 'uniformed beasts' and 'of those uniformed beasts' are, in the context in which they are published, held to be vituperation and insult to unnamed and undesignated members of the Reykjavík police force.   These statements are punishable according to Section 108 of the General Penal Code.   In the indictment these statements are considered defamatory allegations.   Having regard to Section 118 para. 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no. 74/1974, the defendant can nevertheless be held responsible for their publication, as his action is in other respects correctly described and his defence cannot be held to have been prejudiced for this reason.   The passages 'The boy's room-mates ...   Reykjavík night-squad' and 'Then I found out ... simple lies any more' and the words 'the victims of the police brutes' are, both alone and in their contexts in the defendant's newspaper article in question, deemed to constitute allegations against unnamed and undesignated members of the Reykjavík police force of many and serious acts of physical assault against persons who thus became disabled.   This falls under Section 218, cf.   Section 138, of the General Penal Code, a violation of which may bring a penalty of many years in prison.   The defendant's allegation has not been justified, and by the publication of these statements in the article he is liable to punishment according to Section 108 of the General Penal Code.   The statements 'with the uniformed beasts' and 'police brutes' must also be deemed to be insults and vituperation directed against unnamed and undesignated members of the Reykjavík police force.   In the indictment these statements are considered a defamatory allegation, but according to the provisions referred to above the defendant can nevertheless be held responsible for them according to Section 108 of the General Penal Code.   The words 'allowing brutes and sadists to practise their perverted mentality' are in their context in the said article held to be vituperation and insults to unnamed and undesignated members of the Reykjavík police force.   In the indictment they are considered a defamatory allegation, but according to the provisions referred to above the defendant can nevertheless be held responsible for them according to Section 108 of the General Penal Code.   The passage 'Their behaviour* was so typical of our police force in defence: bullish falsifications, illegal actions, superstition, hasted stupidity' has not been justified.   With the exception of the words 'superstition, hasted stupidity' the passage is considered to involve an allegation against unnamed and undesignated members of the Reykjavík police in respect of falsifications and other unspecified criminal offences.   This falls under the provisions of Chapters XIV and XVII of the General Penal Code, a violation of which may bring heavy prison sentences.   ___________   * The applicant's article reads: Captain Bjarnason's behaviour ...   (see para. 21(15) above) ___________   By making these statements the defendant has become liable to punishment according to Section 108 of the General Penal Code.   The words 'superstition, hasted stupidity' are, on the other hand, considered to be within the limits of permissible criticism, and the defendant is therefore not liable for them under the indictment."   35.      The applicant was sentenced to pay a fine of 10,000 Icelandic crowns to the State Treasury, alternatively to be detained for eight days if the fine had not been paid within four weeks from the service of the judgment.   The applicant was, furthermore, ordered to pay all costs of the case, including fees to his defence counsel.   36.      The applicant was present when the District Court judgment was pronounced and immediately declared that he appealed against the judgment to the Supreme Court of Iceland.   The public prosecutor also appealed against the judgment.   37.      The applicant's case was heard in the Supreme Court on 22 September 1987.   His court appointed counsel requested the annulment of the District Court judgment as well as the entire procedure as from the issuance of the indictment, and that the case be referred back to the District Court for renewed adjudication.   In the alternative he requested acquittal of all charges.   38.      In its judgment of 20 October 1987, the Supreme Court stated inter alia:   (translation)   "... the claim of annulment is based on the same points as were presented to the Criminal Court on 24 September 1985, and the defendant's lawyer at that time had formulated the following note:   'The defendant's lawyer refers to the fact that no representative of the prosecution was present at the trial or at any former sessions in this case.   He also refers to the statements of the judge that the defendant's indication of the bill of indictment being a violation of Section 4 of the Law on Copyright No. 73/1972, had not been presented to the public prosecutor.   Referring to para. 1 of Section 20 of the Law 74/1974 and No. 1 of para. 1 of Section 36, the defendant considers the fact of one person performing the roles of both judge and prosecutor in the same case to be unlawful.   Considering the lack of initiative to modify this state of affairs, the replacement of the judge of this case is required'.   The Criminal Court judge rejected this request in a decision against which the public prosecutor did not authorise a summary appeal t