CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 9 mai 1994

.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 }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 18759/91                       by John Mitchell McLAUGHLIN                       against the United Kingdom         The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 9 May 1994, the following members being present:              MM.    C.A. NØRGAARD, President                  S. TRECHSEL                  A. WEITZEL                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  J.-C. SOYER                  H.G. SCHERMERS                  H. DANELIUS                  F. MARTINEZ                  Mrs. J. LIDDY            MM.    L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  G.B. REFFI                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  J. MUCHA                  D. SVÁBY              Mr.    H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission         Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;         Having regard to the application introduced on 23 August 1991 by John Mitchell McLAUGHLIN against the United Kingdom and registered on 21 September 1991 under file No. 18759/91;         Having regard to :   -      reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the       Commission;   -      the observations submitted by the respondent Government on       1 March 1993 and the observations in reply submitted by the       applicant on 20 July 1993;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:   THE FACTS         The applicant is an Irish citizen, born in 1945 and resident in Derry, Northern Ireland. In the proceedings before the Commission he is represented by Mr. P.J. Madden, a solicitor practising in Belfast.         The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.   (a)    The particular circumstances of the case         The applicant is an active member of Sinn Fein, a political party. In the 1985 local government elections in Northern Ireland he was elected to Derry City Council. In 1987 he was elected chairman of the Council's Finance and General Purposes Committee. He is a member of several other committees of Derry City Council and his party's spokesman on the economy. In 1989 he was reelected as a city councillor.         On 19 October 1988, the Secretary of State for the Home Department issued two directives, one addressed to the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), the other to the Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA), in the following terms:         "1. ... I hereby require [the BBC] [the IBA] to refrain at all       times from sending any broadcast matter which consists of or       includes -              any words spoken, whether in the course of an interview or            discussion or otherwise, by a person who appears or is            heard on the programme in which the matter is broadcast            where -              (a) the person speaking the words represents or purports to            represent an organisation specified in paragraph 2 below,            or              (b) the words support or solicit or invite support for such            an organisation,              other than any matter specified in paragraph 3 below.         2.    The organisations referred to in paragraph 1 above are -              (a) any organisation which is for the time being a            proscribed organisation for the purposes of the Prevention            of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 or the            Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978; and              (b) Sinn Fein, Republican Sinn Fein and the Ulster Defence            Association.         3.    The matter excluded from paragraph 1 above is any words       spoken -              (a) in the course of proceedings in Parliament, or              (b) by or in support of a candidate at a parliamentary,            European Parliamentary or local election pending that            election."         The Home Secretary explained the reasons for the measure in a statement to Parliament on 19 October 1988:         "For some time broadcast coverage of events in Northern Ireland       has included the occasional appearance of representatives of       para-military organisations and their political wings, who have       used these opportunities as an attempt to justify their criminal       activities. Such appearances have caused widespread offence to       viewers and listeners throughout the United Kingdom, particularly       just after a terrorist outrage. The terrorists themselves draw       support and sustenance from access to radio and television - from       addressing their views more directly to the population at large       than is possible through the press. The Government have decided       that the time has come to deny this easy platform to those who       use it to propagate terrorism. Accordingly, I have today issued       to the chairmen of the B.B.C. and the I.B.A. a notice... The       restrictions will not apply to the broadcast of proceedings in       Parliament, and in order not to impair the obligation on the       broadcasters to provide an impartial coverage of elections the       notices will have a more limited effect during election       periods... These restrictions follow very closely the lines of       similar provisions which have been operating in the Republic of       Ireland for some years... Broadcasters have a dangerous and       unenviable task in reporting events in Northern Ireland. This       step is no criticism of them. What concerns us is the use made       of broadcasting facilities by supporters of terrorism. This is       not a restriction on reporting. It is a restriction on direct       appearances by those who use or support violence...".         By way of an explanatory letter dated 24 October 1988 the Home Office offered guidance to the BBC on the interpretation of the notices. The letter, which was copied to the IBA, provided, inter alia, as follows:         "It was asked whether the notice applied only to direct       statements by representatives of the organisations or their       supporters or whether it applied also to reports of the words       they had spoken.   We confirmed, as the Home Secretary has made       clear in Parliament, that the correct interpretation (and that       which was intended) is that it applies only to direct statements       and not to reported speech, and that the person caught by the       notice is the one whose words are reported and not the reporter       or presenter who reports them.   Thus the notice permits the       showing of a film or still picture of the initiator speaking the       words together with a voice-over account of them, whether in       paraphrase or verbatim.   We confirmed that programmes involving       the reconstruction of actual events, where actors use the       verbatim words which had been spoken in actuality, are similarly       permitted.       ...         The BBC also asked whether a member of an organisation or one of       its elected representatives could be considered as permanently       representing that organisation so that all his words, whatever       their character, were covered by the Notice.   We confirmed that       the Home Office takes the view that this is too narrow an       interpretation of the word "represents" in paragraph 1(a) of the       text.   A member of an organisation cannot be held to represent       that organisation in all his daily activities.   Whether at any       particular instance he is representing the organisation concerned       will depend upon the nature of the words spoken and the       particular context.   Where he is speaking in a personal capacity       or purely in his capacity as a member of an organisation which       does not fall under the notice (for example, an elected Council),       it follows, from that interpretation, that paragraph 1(a) will       not apply.   Where it is clear, from the context and the words       that he is speaking as a representative of an organisation       falling under the notice, his words may not be broadcast       directly, but (as mentioned above) can be reported.   (He may, of       course, come within the scope of paragraph 1(b), if his words       contain support for the organisation.)   Although there may be       borderline occasions when this distinction will require a careful       exercise of judgment, we believe that the great majority of       broadcast material will fall clearly within one case or the       other."         On 2 November 1988 the Home Secretary's directions to the BBC and the IBA were debated in the House of Commons, and approved by 243 votes to 179.   The House of Lords, also after a debate, took note of the directions on 8 December 1988.         The applicant challenged the directives in judicial review proceedings.   His application was dismissed by the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland on 7 September 1990.   Mr. Justice Carswell noted that the case of Brind (R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Brind and others) had already been determined by the Court of Appeal in London, and dealt with the other issue raised by the applicant as follows:         "The sole ground upon which the argument for the applicant was       advanced in this court was that the directives were unlawful, in       that they violated the provisions of Section 19 of the Northern       Ireland Constitution Act 1973.   The material part of Section       19(1) reads as follows:              'It shall be unlawful for a Minister of the Crown ... to            discriminate, or aid, induce or incite another to            discriminate, in the discharge of functions relating to            Northern Ireland against any person or class of persons on            the ground of religious belief or political opinion.'         "Discrimination" is defined in Section 23(2) in the following       terms:              'For those purposes [ie the purposes of Part III of the            Act] a person discriminates against another person or a            class of persons if he treats that other person or that            class of persons less favourably in any circumstances than            he treats or would treat other persons in those            circumstances.'         There must in my opinion be a purposive connotation in the words.       'on the ground of' in Section 19(1).   Unfavourable treatment of       other persons amounting to discrimination against them is not per       se made unlawful by the subsection.   For A's unfavourable       treatment of B to amount to unlawful discrimination, it must be       established that it was carried out on the ground of B's       religious belief or political opinion. ...       ...         The following issues accordingly arise in respect of each       directive:         ...         3.    if [the Home Secretary] did treat them less favourably       [than other persons], whether he did so on the ground of their       political opinions...       ...       As they operate in the present case, the terms of the directives       require the BBC and IBA to refrain from sending any broadcast       matter which consists of or includes words where              (a) the speaker represents Sinn Fein, or              (b) the words support or solicit or invite support for Sinn            Fein.   The courts in this jurisdiction have on several            occasions taken judicial notice of the objects of Sinn            Fein.   In re Curran and McCann's Application [1985] NI 261,            263-4 Hutton J expressed his view in the following passage:                    'Therefore I take judicial notice of the facts that                  the policy and aims of Sinn Fein are to take power in                  Northern Ireland with a ballot paper in one hand and                  an Armalite in the other, that Sinn Fein gives                  unambivalent support to the 'armed struggle', which is                  the euphemism used by Sinn Fein to describe terrorist                  murders and other violent crimes committed by the                  Provisional IRA, and that when the elected                  representatives of Sinn Fein take part in the normal                  work of an elected council this is just one plank of                  their policy, the other plank being the unambivalent                  support of murder and other acts of terrorist violence                  committe[d] to overthrow democratic government in                  Northern Ireland.'            ...            The relevant characteristic of Sinn Fein, as in the case of            the other organisations specified in the directives, is its            support for violence, which cannot be classed as a            legitimate political opinion.   That support is an intrinsic            part of the policy of Sinn Fein.              The ban does not operate upon the broadcaster because he is            a member of Sinn Fein.   Indeed, it applies equally to            persons who are not members, if the words which they say            support or solicit or invite support for Sinn Fein.   It is            not aimed at the opinions of the broadcaster, but at his            representation of Sinn Fein or his support for it.              It follows from this that the major objections made on            behalf of the applicant are not well founded.   The first            was that Sinn Fein has some legitimate political objectives            and activities, and the width of the ban prevents its            members from expressing views by means of radio and            television on legitimate political topics.   Its effect            therefore is to bring about the unlawful object of            discriminating against Sinn Fein on the ground of political            opinion.   I am satisfied on the evidence, however, that in            issuing his directives the Home Secretary was aiming            squarely at terrorism.   The first sentence of his statement            to the House of Commons on 19 October 1988 referred to            'representatives of paramilitary organisations and their            political wings'.   He referred at several points to            terrorism, and stated that the Government had decided that            the time had now come 'to deny this easy platform who use            it to propagate terrorism'.   He expressed concern about the            use made of broadcasting facilities by 'supporters of            terrorism', and described his directives as a 'restriction            on direct appearances by those who use or support            violence'.   The same tone was struck in the subsequent            debates and statements made in Parliament and in the terms            of the resolution passed by the House of Commons on            2 November 1988.   If confirmation of this purpose is            required, it may be found in the averments contained in the            passages which I have quoted from Mr. Scoble's affidavit,            which have not been controverted.   If the applicant is            correct in his contention that the effect of the directives            is to hinder members of Sinn Fein in carrying out            legitimate political activities, that does not make the            actions of the Home Secretary unlawful as discriminating            against those members on the ground of political opinion.            His object was to reduce the support for terrorism afforded            by the participation of Sinn Fein representatives in            television and radio broadcasts.   It is perfectly clear            that the support of terrorist violence is an intrinsic part            of Sinn Fein policy.   I accept the Home Secretary's            contention that in issuing the directives he was attempting            to take steps to reduce the publicity given to such            support.   In my opinion this is not discrimination against            the members or supporters of Sinn Fein on the ground of any            legitimate political opinions which they hold.   The Home            Secretary issued the directives on the ground of the            support for terrorism which is an integral part of that            party's policy.   As such it is not in my judgment unlawful            under Section 19(1) of the Northern Ireland Constitution            Act 1973.              The applicant's second objection to the directives was            based upon the fact that the applicant has signed a            declaration pursuant to the Elected Authorities (Northern            Ireland) Act 1989.   This is not the time and place for a            detailed discussion of or ruling upon the scope and effect            of the execution of such a declaration.   It is sufficient            to say that the directives were not issued in order to            prevent the broadcasting of programmes in which particular            persons or classes of persons take part.   Their object was            the prevention of matter of a particular kind being            broadcast.   It is therefore immaterial that a particular            speaker on a broadcast programme may have forsworn support            for acts of terrorism, if he represents or expresses            support for Sinn Fein, a party whose notorious policy is            the support of terrorist violence."         The House of Lords gave its judgments in the case of Brind on 7 February 1991.   On 4 March 1991 the applicant abandoned his appeal in the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland, and it was duly dismissed.   (b)    The relevant domestic law         The notices made in the present case were authorised under powers conferred on the Home Secretary in a "Licence and Agreement" of 2 April 1981 in respect of the BBC and under Section 29 of the Broadcasting Act 1981 in respect of the IBA.         The BBC is a public corporation governed by a Royal Charter which defines its objects, powers and obligations, its constitution and the sources and uses of its revenues. The Licence and Agreement prescribes the terms and conditions of the corporation's operations.         Clause 13 (4) of the Licence and Agreement reads as follows:         "The Secretary of State may from time to time by notice in       writing require the Corporation to refrain at any specified time       or at all times from sending any matter or matters of any class       specified in such notice; and the Secretary of State may at any       time or times vary or revoke any such notice..."         Section 29 (3) of the Broadcasting Act 1981 provides that:         "... the Secretary of State may at any time by notice in writing       require the Authority to refrain from broadcasting any matter or       classes of matter specified in the notice; and it shall be the       duty of the Authority to comply with the notice."         In the case of Brind, the House of Lords rejected the applicant's challenge to the orders, finding that "it was impossible to say that the Secretary of State, in concluding that the modest restrictions imposed by the directives were justified by the important public interest of combating terrorism, had exceeded the limits of his discretion or acted unreasonably in making them" (R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Brind and others, [1991] 1 AC 696, quotation taken from the headnote).   COMPLAINTS         The applicant complains that as a result of the directions he is prevented from having direct access to the broadcast media: he can no longer contribute to radio and television programmes, participate in televised press conferences, and comment on economic and political developments in the city; he is no longer interviewed on radio and television, and an already scheduled radio interview was cancelled; as a city councillor he has no access to the media on matters of concern to his constituents.   The restrictions apply even to matters connected with the affairs of the City Council, in spite of the fact that he is a democratically elected member of the Council representing a lawful political party. Invoking Article 10 of the Convention, he contends that the orders constitute an unjustified interference with his right to receive and impart information and ideas.         Under Article 14 of the Convention the applicant complains that he has been subject to discriminatory treatment as the directions apply only to representatives of Sinn Fein and not to those of other political parties.         Finally, the applicant complains that he had no effective remedy before a national authority for his Convention claims, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION         The application was introduced on 23 August 1991 and registered on 21 September 1991.         On 31 August 1992 the Commission decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government for observations on its admissibility and merits.         The Government submitted their observations on 1 March 1993 and the applicant submitted his observations in reply on 20 July 1993.   THE LAW   1.     The applicant alleges a violation of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention by virtue of the effect which the Home Secretary's orders to the BBC and the IBA have on him.         Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention provides, so far as relevant, as follows.         "1.   Everyone has the right to freedom of expression.   This       right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and       impart information and ideas without interference by public       authority and regardless of frontiers. ...         2.    The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it       duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities,       conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law       and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of       national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for       the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health       or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of       others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in       confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of       the judiciary."         The Government accept that, for the purposes of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention, there has been an interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression, but they point out that the extent of the interference is less than the restrictions applicable in Ireland when the Commission decided Purcell v. Ireland (Application No. 15404/89, Dec. 16.4.91), and in any event is mitigated by the fact that the notices do not limit the words which can be spoken on radio and television, but merely require (for statements falling within the ambit of the notices) an actor's voice to be used.         The applicant underlines that his position is not to be compared with that of journalists, as he is a democratically elected local councillor who is a member of a lawful political party.   He denies that the restrictions are in fact as limited as the Government maintain, as in practice he is not asked to give interviews on any matters at all because of his membership of a lawful political party. He states that the effect of the restrictions is to give an unfair advantage to his political opponents who are not subject to the restrictions.         The Commission recalls that Article 10 (Art. 10) rights can be interfered with by restrictions on the manner of conveying information, as well as on the content of the information (Nos. 11553/85 and 11658/85, Dec. 9.3.87, D.R. 51, p. 136, 144; Eur. Court H.R., Autronic judgment of 22 May 1990, Series A no. 178, p. 23, para. 47).         The Commission cannot establish whether the fact that the applicant is not interviewed on specific or general political questions is attributable to the directions given by the Home Secretary to broadcasters, but accepts that the directions affect the way in which he is able to impart information.   It also accepts that it is probable that a councillor whose statements must be "voiced over" is less likely, all else being equal, to be interviewed for television or radio than one whose statements can be broadcast as they are made.         The Commission finds that the applicant has been subjected to interference with his Article 10 (Art. 10) rights.         The interference entails a violation of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention if it does not fall within one of the exceptions provided for in paragraph 2 (Art. 10-2).   The Commission must therefore examine whether the interference was "prescribed by law", whether it had an aim or aims that is or are legitimate under Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2), and whether it was "necessary in a democratic society" to achieve that aim or those aims.         The Government submit that the Licence and Agreement of 1981 with the BBC and the Broadcasting Act 1981 in the case of the IBA provide the necessary regulatory background to the notices, and that, when taken together with the explanatory letter from the Home Office, the directions fall within the concept of "law" as defined by the European Court of Human Rights in the Sunday Times case (Eur. Court H.R., Sunday Times judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, p. 31, para. 49). The applicant points out that the notice made to the IBA in the present case, unlike the Order in Application No. 15404/89, did not have to be laid before Parliament, and that the notice to the BBC was made pursuant to a licensing agreement, which is not of the nature of a "law" within the meaning of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention. The applicant also considers that, if the notices had to be explained by a letter from the Home Office, then they do not have the requisite precision to comply with Article 10 (Art. 10).   He underlines that his membership of the local council results from his membership of Sinn Fein, and states that neither the notices nor the explanatory letter addresses this problem.         The Commission recalls that the European Court of Human Rights has identified at least three requirements which flow from the phrase "in accordance with the law" within the meaning of Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention.   The phrase "prescribed by law" in Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention must be interpreted in the same way as the phrase "in accordance with the law" in Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention (Eur. Court H.R., Silver judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 33, para. 85).   Thus a norm must be formulated with sufficient precision; the phrase "in accordance with the law", or the equivalent phrase "prescribed by law", does not merely refer back to domestic law, but also relates to the quality of the law, and a law conferring a discretion is not in itself inconsistent with the requirement of foreseeability provided that the scope of the discretion and the manner of its exercise are indicated with sufficient clarity (Eur. Court H.R., Olsson judgment of 24 March 1988, Series A no. 130, p. 30, para. 61 with further references).         The Commission notes that there is no contention in the present case that the interference was not in accordance with domestic law, as the House of Lords in the case of Brind ultimately established.   As to whether the "law" at issue in the present case has the required "quality", the Commission notes that the authority to make notices is of a general, blanket nature.   It sets no limits on the type of directions the minister may give, and does not require the directions to be made for any particular purpose.   The Commission must, however, look not only to the source of the authority for the making of the directions, but also to the directions themselves, as it is the directions which laid down the restrictions which had, and have, to be complied with by broadcasters and thereby affect the applicant.         The Commission recalls that accessibility and foreseeability are two of the requirements inherent in the phrase "prescribed by law" in Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention (see, for example, Eur. Court H.R., Sunday Times judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no 30, p. 31, para. 49).   The accessibility of the directions is not in question in the present case: the source of the authority for the respective notices is generally available, and the notices made by the Home Secretary were announced in Parliament, debated in Parliament, and the subject of widespread comment in the press.   As to foreseeability, even if the original notices contained areas of uncertainty, such as the impact on elected individuals speaking on matters unrelated to terrorism, the Commission finds that the subsequent clarification by the Home Office to the broadcasting authorities rendered the scope of the interference apparent to all concerned.         Accordingly, the Commission finds that the interference was "prescribed by law" within the meaning of Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention.         The Commission must next consider whether the interference with the applicant's rights pursued a "legitimate aim".   The Government point to the address by the Home Secretary to the House of Commons on 19 October 1988, in which he referred to the restrictions as part of the campaign against terrorism.   They recall that Lord Templeman in the House of Lords also recognised this aim.   They see the aim of the notices as principally the protection of "the interests of national security" and "the prevention of disorder or crime".   The applicant regards the test of the legitimacy of aims under Article 10 (Art. 10) as an objective one.   He considers that the Government must show how they expected the measure to protect national security or prevent crime, and adds that there is no evidence that audiences are offended by responsible journalism (and the Home Secretary expressly stated in Parliament that there was no criticism of journalists); that Irish "terrorists" have not been interviewed on British television since 1979; that there is no indication that or how the "standing" of terrorists had been increased, and that "intimidating" statements had been broadcast.           The Commission notes that the restrictions in the present case refer in terms to proscribed organisations and to named organisations which, although not prohibited, are known to have connections with unlawful organisations.   The Commission finds no indication that the directions were anything other than part of the measures to combat terrorism which were made in good faith. The Commission accepts that the aim of the restrictions is legitimate.         Finally, the Commission must consider the question of the necessity for the interference with the applicant's Article 10 (Art. 10) rights.   The European Court of Human Rights has summarised the major principles of its case-law on the "necessity" test in Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention as follows:         "(a) Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential       foundations of a democratic society;   subject to paragraph 2 of       Article 10 (Art. 10), it is applicable not only to 'information'       or 'ideas' that are favourably received or regarded as       inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those       that offend, shock or disturb.   Freedom of expression, as       enshrined in Article 10 (Art. 10), is subject to a number of       exceptions which, however, must be narrowly interpreted and the       necessity for any restrictions must be convincingly established.         (b)   These principles are of particular importance as far as the       press is concerned. While it must not overstep the bounds set,       inter alia, in the `interests of national security' or for       `maintaining the authority of the judiciary', it is nevertheless       incumbent on it to impart information and ideas on matters of       public interest. Not only does the press have the task of       imparting such information and ideas: the   public also has a       right to receive them. were it otherwise, the press would be       unable to play its vital role of `public watchdog'.         (c) The adjective 'necessary', within the meaning of Article 10       para. 2 (Art. 10-2), implies the existence of a 'pressing social       need'.   The Contracting States have a certain margin of       appreciation in assessing whether such a need exists, but it goes       hand in hand with a European supervision, embracing both the law       and the decisions applying it, even those given by independent       courts.   The [Convention organs] are therefore empowered to give       the final ruling on whether a 'restriction' is reconcilable with       freedom of expression as protected by Article 10 (Art. 10).         (d)   The [Convention organs'] task, in exercising [their]       supervisory jurisdiction, is not to take the place of the       competent national authorities but rather to review under Article       10 (Art. 10) the decisions they delivered pursuant to their power       of appreciation.   This does not mean that [their] supervision is       limited to ascertaining whether the respondent State exercised       its discretion reasonably, carefully and in good faith; what       [they have] to do is to look at the interference complained of       in the light of the case as a whole and determine whether it was       'proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued' and whether the       reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify it are       'relevant and sufficient'."         (Eur. Court H.R., Sunday Times (No. 2) judgment of       26 November 1991, Series A no. 217, p. 29, para. 50)         The Government accept that the directions given to broadcasting authorities will not directly reduce the number of terrorist acts in Northern Ireland or in the United Kingdom, but state that they are intended to reduce the impact and influence of the advocates and supporters of such acts, and that they correspond to the need to prevent the giving of overt support for certain organisations.   They refer to the Purcell case, where the Commission found that the restrictions were designed to "deny representatives of known terrorist organisations and their political supporters a possibility of using the broadcast media as a platform for advocating their cause, encouraging support for their organisation and conveying the impression of their legitimacy".   They consider that, notwithstanding the compliance by broadcasters with their various statutory or contractual duties, interviews were broadcast before the notices were issued which gave terrorists and