CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 11 décembre 1997

.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 }                    EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                      Application No. 25067/94   Ümit ERDOGDU                               against                               Turkey                                 and                      Application No. 25068/94                             Selami iNCE                               against   Turkey                      REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                    (adopted on 11 December 1997)                          TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                             Page   I.    INTRODUCTION      (paras. 1-21). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1        A.    The applications           (paras. 2-5). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1        B.    The proceedings           (paras. 6-16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1        C.    The present Report           (paras. 17-21). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3   II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS      (paras. 22-34) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4        A.    The particular circumstances of the cases           (paras. 22-30). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4        B.    Relevant domestic law           (paras. 31-34). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7   III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION      (paras. 35-67) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9        A.    Complaints declared admissible           (para. 35). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9        B.    Points at issue           (para. 36). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9        C.    As regards Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention           (paras. 37-59). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9             CONCLUSION           (para. 60). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13        D.    As regards Article 7 of the Convention           (paras. 61-64). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13             CONCLUSION           (para. 65). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14        E.    Recapitulation           (paras. 66-67). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14   PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK. . . . . . . 15   APPENDIX No. 1:DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO                THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                APPLICATION No. 25067/94 . . . . . . . . . . 16   APPENDIX No. 2:DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO                THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                APPLICATION No. 25068/94 . . . . . . . . . . 25   I.    INTRODUCTION   1.    The following is an outline of the cases as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights by the parties, and of the procedure before the Commission.   A.    The applications   2.    The first applicant is a Turkish national. He was born in 1970 and lives in istanbul. He was represented before the Commission by Mrs. Oya Ataman, a lawyer practising in Ankara.        The second applicant is a Turkish national. He was born in 1966 and lives in Ankara. He was represented before the Commission by Mr. Senal Sarihan, a lawyer practising in Ankara.   3.    Both applications are directed against Turkey. The respondent Government were represented by Mr. Bakir Çaglar, Professor at istanbul University.   4.    The cases concern the applicants' convictions by the State Security Court on account of the publication of an interview in a monthly review. The first applicant is the responsible editor of the review. The second applicant, a journalist and a writer, made the incriminated interview with a Turkish sociologist.   5.    The applicants complain under Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention that their convictions on account of the incriminated interview constituted an unjustified interference with their freedom of thought and freedom of expression, in particular, their right to receive and impart information and ideas.        Moreover, they complain under Article 7 of the Convention that they were convicted for an act which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time it was committed. They submit in particular that the relevant provision of the Anti-Terror Law was so vague that it did not enable them to distinguish between permissible and prohibited behaviour.   B.    The proceedings   6.    Both applications were introduced on 20 August 1994 and registered on 2 September 1994.   7.    On 20 February 1995, the Commission decided, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of both applications to the Turkish Government and to invite the parties to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicants' complaints based (under Article 10 of the Convention) on the alleged violation of their freedom of expression and (under Article 7 of the Convention) on the alleged violation of their right not to be convicted for an act which did not constitute a criminal offence under Turkish law at the time it was committed.   8.    As to Application No. 25067/94, the Government's written observations were submitted on 17 July 1995. The first applicant replied on 7 September 1995.   9.    As to Application No. 25068/94, the Government's written observations were submitted on 11 August 1995. The second applicant replied on 21 March 1996, after an extension of the time-limit fixed for that purpose.   10.   Meanwhile, on 4 December 1995, the Government submitted information concerning the amendments made to the Anti-Terror Law (Law No. 3713) and the developments in the cases of persons convicted and sentenced under Article 8 of the said Law. The applicants submitted comments in reply on 19 February and 21 March 1996, respectively.   11.   On 2 September and 14 October 1996, respectively, the Commission declared the applications admissible.   12.   Meanwhile, on 13 and 25 September 1996, respectively, the Government submitted information as to the further developments of the proceedings against the applicants.   13.   The text of the Commission's decisions on admissibility was sent to the parties on 16 September and 31 October 1996, respectively, and they were invited to submit such further information or observations on the merits as they wished.   14.   None of the parties submitted any observations.   15.   On 2 December 1997 the Commission joined the two applications.   16.   After declaring the cases 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. In the light of the parties' reaction, the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement can be effected.   C.    The present Report   17.   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:             Mr.   S. TRECHSEL, President           Mrs. G.H. THUNE           Mrs. J. LIDDY           MM.   E. BUSUTTIL                G. JÖRUNDSSON                A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                A. WEITZEL                J.-C. SOYER                H. DANELIUS                F. MARTINEZ                C.L. ROZAKIS                L. LOUCAIDES                J.-C. GEUS                M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                M.A. NOWICKI                I. CABRAL BARRETO                B. CONFORTI                N. BRATZA                I. BÉKÉS                J. MUCHA                D. SVÁBY                G. RESS                A. PERENIC                C. BÎRSAN                P. LORENZEN                K. HERNDL                E. BIELIUNAS                E.A. ALKEMA                M. VILA AMIGÓ           Mrs. M. HION           MM.   R. NICOLINI                A. ARABADJIEV   18.   The text of this Report was adopted by the Commission on 11 December 1997 and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   19. The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 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 respondent Government of their obligations           under the Convention.   20.   The Commission's decisions on the admissibility of the applications are appended to this Report.   21.   The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.   II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   A.    The particular circumstances of the case   22.   The first applicant is the responsible editor of the monthly review "Demokrat Muhalefet!" ("Democratic Opposition!"), published in istanbul. In the January 1992 issue of the review, an interview which the second applicant had made with a Turkish sociologist, Dr. i.B., was published.   23.   A translation of the relevant parts of the interview is as follows:        "Q:   How and to what extent will Demirel accept the «Kurdish      reality»? Can his understanding of the «reality» be deemed to      represent State policy?        A:    ... The Government is forced to accept certain facts now      that there is armed resistance in Kurdistan. ... Violence by the      Turkish forces could not stop the escalation and progress of the      P.K.K. ...        Q:    How will the State shape its new official policy on      Kurdistan? Which aspects of the official ideology will be changed      and how will they be changed? What effects can this have on the      daily lives of the Kurdish people?        A:    ... In Turkey, the Government and the State are two very      different things. The State functions through institutions and      bodies, members of which are designated by appointment. These      institutions and bodies represent the power of the State. The      Government, i.e. the political power, carries very little weight      against the power of the State. That is why governments can be      overthrown by the State authority so often. Official ideology can      only be changed in the long term and the forces, which are      capable of changing it, are non-governmental political and social      forces and their struggle. The essence of the ideas and action      of the P.K.K., for example, is such as can change the official      ideology, reduce the influence of the appointed bodies of      Turkey's political scene, and increase the weight of parliaments      elected by the people. In my opinion, de facto, the influence of      the Kurds and, in particular, that of the P.K.K., will grow      further. The influence of the P.K.K. in both the Kurdish and the      Turkish societies will spread and deepen. And, as that influence      grows, more serious steps will be taken by governments in their      policies towards recognising the «Kurdish reality». It is evident      that the State will try to obstruct the Government in that      process and will try to distort certain ideas and policies. And      it is also manifest that the Government will be able to survive      so long as it can resist the power of the State and control the      appointed institutions and bodies, i.e. so long as it has real      power.        These changes will be reflected in the daily lives of the Kurds.      Investigations and research will develop in fields such as the      Kurdish language, history and folklore. Kurdish culture will be      revived. The specificity of a Kurdish society will be emphasised      more amongst the Kurdish masses. National awareness and desire      for liberation will become stronger and will spread further. The      idea and feelings for independence will develop.        Q:    It is now observed that Kurds who, until now, would have      never said «I am Kurdish and I am engaging in politics for my      present life and for my future» are now clearly beginning «to get      into politics for their own interests» throughout Kurdistan and      Turkey. What sort of developments have brought about this      situation? Do Kurds need a political subject in the legal sphere?      If so, what form should it take?        A:    Without any doubt, the most important cause of these      developments has been the armed combat which the P.K.K. has been      waging for almost eight years. The guerrilla warfare has brought      about major social and political changes in traditional Kurdish      society. Traditional values are in turmoil. There has been very      widespread support amongst the people for Kurdish guerrilla      fighters ever since 15 August 1984. National awareness is now      growing in Kurdish society and this process is spreading rapidly.      And we see that, within this process, the political establishment      has been used for Kurdish interests, for the move towards      autonomy and independence. Kurds, who have always been engaged      in politics for others and in order to serve other nations, are      now engaged in politics in order to serve the Kurdish people.      Healthy national awareness is now developing in response to      Turkish racism and colonialism. It would no doubt be over-      simplifying to say that all this began after the onset of Kurdish      guerrilla warfare on 15 August. This process has roots that go      further back into the past but what has been decisive is the new      process launched by the P.K.K. ... Who is illegal in Kurdistan?      The guerrillas or the special team of the Turkish armed      forces? ...        Q:    What should be done to counteract the wave of chauvinist      Turkish nationalism encouraged by the right-wing press and the      M.C.P. [Nationalist Work Party]? Is there a possibility of a      confrontation between the Turkish and Kurdish peoples? How could      that be prevented?        A:    ... Kurds are dying for their nation. What are the Turks      dying for? What are they doing in Kurdistan?        Q:    It has been under discussion for some time that the P.K.K.      hegemony in Kurdistan has reached a stage where one can now talk      of a «double power». Öcalan has mentioned in his writings an      orientation towards the «formation of a Government-State» in the      Botan-Behdinan region. Are there any signs of what the future      interventions of the P.K.K. will be in Kurdistan and in Turkish      politics?        A:    ... The Turkish State has already withdrawn its soldiers      and evacuated police stations in some regions such as Botan.      ... This could be perceived as the beginning of the formation of      a State. ..."   24.   In an indictment dated 23 March 1992, the Public Prosecutor at the istanbul State Security Court (istanbul Devlet Güvenlik Mahkemesi), on account of the publication of the interview, charged the applicants with disseminating propaganda against the indivisibility of the State. The charges were brought under Article 8 of the Anti-Terror Law.   25.   In the proceedings before the State Security Court, the applicants denied the charges. They pleaded that the interview, as published, was a mere transcript of Dr. i.B.'s statements. They maintained that the publication of an interview could not constitute an offence and that similar views had been expressed by the highest authorities in Turkey.   26.   In its judgment dated 12 August 1993, the Court found the applicants guilty under Article 8 of the Anti-Terror Law. The first applicant was sentenced to six months' imprisonment and a fine of 50,000,000 Turkish lira; the second applicant was sentenced to two years' imprisonment and a fine of 50,000,000 Turkish lira. Thereupon the Court, considering the applicants' good conduct during the trial, reduced their sentences to five months' imprisonment and a fine of 41,666,666 Turkish lira and to one year and eight months' imprisonment and a fine of 41,666,666 Turkish lira, respectively.   27.   In the reasoning of its judgment, the Court relied on certain extracts from the interviewee's statements as published. It held, inter alia, that the following phrases amounted to propaganda against the indivisibility of the State: "... the Government is forced to accept certain facts now that there is armed resistance in Kurdistan ..."; "... violence by the Turkish forces could not stop the escalation and progress of the P.K.K. ..."; "... the essence of the ideas and action of the P.K.K. ... can change the official ideology ..."; "... the influence of the Kurds and, in particular, that of the P.K.K., will grow further. The influence of the P.K.K. in both the Kurdish and the Turkish societies will spread and deepen ..."; "... national awareness and desire for liberation will become stronger and will spread further. The idea and feelings for independence will develop ..."; "... the most important cause of these developments has been the armed combat which the P.K.K. has been waging for almost eight years ..."; "... Who is illegal in Kurdistan? The guerrillas or the special team of the Turkish armed forces? ..."; "... Kurds are dying for their nation, what are the Turks dying for? What are they doing in Kurdistan? ..."; "... the Turkish State has already withdrawn their soldiers and evacuated police stations in some regions such as Botan ..."; "... this could be perceived as the beginning of the formation of a State ...".   28.   The applicants appealed against the judgment.   29.   In a decision of 1 February 1994, pronounced on 9 February 1994 in the absence of the applicants, the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeals. It upheld the cogency of the State Security Court's assessment of evidence and its reasoning in rejecting the applicants' defence. The judgment was served upon the applicants on 21 February 1994.   30.   Subsequent to the amendments made to the Anti-Terror Law by Law No. 4126 of 27 October 1995, the istanbul State Security Court re-examined the applicants' cases. On 15 December 1995 the Court sentenced the applicants' to five months' imprisonment and a fine of 41,666,666 Turkish lira and to one year and ten days' imprisonment and a fine of 111,111,110 Turkish lira, respectively. The Court ordered that the execution of the sentences be suspended on probation (cezanin ertelenmesi).   B.    Relevant domestic law   31.   Article 8 paragraph 1 of Anti-Terror Law No. 3713 of 12 April 1991 (before the amendments of 27 October 1995)        <Original>        "Hangi yöntem, maksat ve düsünceyle olursa olsun Türkiye      Cumhuriyeti Devletinin ülkesi ve milletiyle bölünmez bütünlügünü      bozmayi hedef alan yazili ve sözlü propaganda ile toplanti,      gösteri ve yürüyüs yapilamaz. Yapanlar hakkinda 2 yildan 5 yila      kadar agir hapis ve ellimilyon liradan yüzmilyon liraya kadar      agir para cezasi hükmolunur."        <Translation>        "No one shall, by any means or with any intention or idea, make      written or oral propaganda or hold assemblies, demonstrations or      manifestations against the indivisible integrity of the State of      the Turkish Republic, its territories and the nation. Those      carrying out any such activity shall be sentenced to imprisonment      between two and five years and a fine between 50 and      100 million Turkish lira."   32.   Article 8 paragraph 2 of Anti-Terror Law        <Original>        "Yukaridaki fikrada belirtilen propaganda suçunun 5680 sayili      Basin Kanunun 3 üncü maddesinde belirtilen mevkuteler vasitasi      ile islenmesi halinde, ayrica sahiplerine de mevkute bir aydan      az süreli ise, bir önceki ay ortalama satis miktarinin: [mevkute      niteliginde bulunmayan basili eserler ile yeni yayina giren      mevkuteler hakkinda ise, en yükek tirajli günlük mevkutenin bir      önceki ay ortalama satis tutarinin]; yüzde dosani kadar agir para      cezasi verilir. Ancak, bu para cezalari yüzmilyon liradan az      olamaz. Bu mevkutelerin sorumlu müdürlerine, sahiplerine      verilecek para cezasinin yarisi uygulanir ve alti aydan iki yila      kadar hapis cezasi hükmolunur."        <Translation>        "If the offence of propaganda, referred to in paragraph 1 above,      is committed by means of periodicals, as defined in Article 3 of      Press Law No. 5680, the owners of such periodicals shall be      punished by a fine to be determined in accordance with the      following provisions: for periodicals published at less than      monthly intervals, the fine shall be ninety per cent of the      average real sales revenue of the previous month; [for printed      works that are not periodicals or for periodicals which have      recently started business, the fine shall be the average monthly      sales revenue of the highest circulating daily periodical]. In      any case, the fine may not be less than 100 million Turkish lira.      Responsible editors of these periodicals shall be sentenced to      imprisonment of between six months and two years and to half of      the fine determined in accordance with the provisions concerning      the owners."   33.   In its judgment No. 1991-18/20, dated 31 March 1992, the Constitutional Court found the above clause in square brackets to be contrary to the Constitution and annulled it. The decision was published in the Official Gazette on 27 January 1993. The annulled clause ceased to have effect on 27 July 1993.   34.   Article 8 paragraph 1 of the Anti-Terror Law as amended by Law No. 4126 of 27 October 1995        <Original>        "Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Devleti'nin ülkesi ve milletiyle bölünmez      bütünlügünü bozmayi hedef alan yazili ve sözlü propaganda ile      toplanti, gösteri ve yürüyüs yapilamaz. Yapanlar hakkinda bir      yildan üç yila kadar hapis ve yüz milyon liradan üçyüzmilyon      liraya kadar agir para cezasi hükmolunur. Bu suçun mükerreren      islenmesi halinde, verilecek cezalar paraya cevrilemez."        <Translation>        "No one shall make written or oral propaganda or hold assemblies,      demonstrations or manifestations against the indivisible      integrity of the State of the Turkish Republic, its territories      and the nation. Those carrying out any such activity shall be      sentenced to imprisonment between one and three years and to a      fine between 100 and 300 million Turkish lira. In case of      re-occurrence of this offence, sentences of imprisonment shall      not be commuted to fines."   III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   A.    Complaints declared admissible   35.   The Commission has declared admissible:   -     the applicants' complaints that their convictions on account of the publication of an interview constituted an unjustified interference with their freedom of thought and freedom of expression;   -     the applicants' complaints that, due to the lack of sufficient clarity of the relevant law, their convictions were not foreseeable.   B.    Points at issue   36.   The points at issue in the present case are as follows:   -     whether there has been a violation of Articles 9 and 10 (Art. 9, 10) of the Convention;   -     whether there has been a violation of Article 7 (Art. 7) of the Convention.   C.    As regards Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention   37.   The applicants complain under Articles 9 and 10 (Art. 9, 10) of the Convention that their convictions on account of the publication of an interview constituted an unjustified interference with their freedom of thought and freedom of expression.   38.   The applicants' complaints essentially concern an alleged violation of their freedom of expression. The Commission will therefore examine these complaints under Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention, which states:        "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. This Article shall not prevent      States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television      or cinema enterprises.        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."   39.   The applicants submit that their respective convictions, which, in any event, were disproportionate in view of the limited circulation of the review in question, did not serve any legitimate purpose under the Convention. They maintain that the penal sanctions inflicted upon them were not necessary in a democratic society: the incriminated interview involved only a transcription of Dr. i.B.'s views, which were similar to opinions already expressed by official authorities in Turkey.   40.   The respondent Government maintain that the respective interferences with the applicants' rights under Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention were prescribed by law, i.e. by Article 8 of the Anti-Terror Law. In their view, certain statements contained in the incriminated interview amounted to propaganda against the indivisibility of the State and, therefore, the domestic courts interpreted the law reasonably. The purpose of the applicants' convictions was linked to the control of terrorism carried out by illegal organisations and, consequently, served to protect territorial integrity and national security. They submit that it is generally accepted in comparative and international law that restrictions on Convention rights will be deemed necessary in a democratic society threatened by terrorist violence as being proportionate to the aim of protecting public order.   41.   As to the necessity of the measures in a democratic society, the respondent Government state that the threat posed to Turkey by the P.K.K. (the Kurdistan Workers Party) and its affiliations is internationally recognised, as is the need to react firmly to it. Terrorism strikes at the heart of democracy, the fundamental rights which it enshrines and the judicial and political systems. They assert that the interview in question was based on the glorification of the P.K.K.'s activities, the P.K.K. being an illegal terrorist organisation aiming at the establishment of an independent Kurdish State. It is true that freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society. However, in a situation where politically motivated violence poses a constant threat to the lives and security of the population, and where advocates of this violence seek access to the mass media for publicity purposes, it is particularly difficult to strike a fair balance between the requirements of protecting freedom of information and the imperatives of protecting the State and the public against armed conspirators seeking to overthrow the democratic order which guarantees this freedom and other human rights. In this respect the Government claim that the decisions of the istanbul State Security Court and the Court of Cassation did not exceed the margin of appreciation conferred on the Contracting States by the Convention. In sum, the Government consider that the applications are ill-founded.   42.   The Commission is of the opinion that the penalties imposed on the applicants constituted "interferences" in the exercise of their freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1) of the Convention.   This point has not been in dispute between the parties.   43.   Therefore, the question is whether these interferences were prescribed by law, pursued a legitimate aim under Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) and were "necessary in a democratic society" in order to realise that legitimate aim.   44.   As to the question of lawfulness, the Commission recalls that, in the particular case of restrictions on freedom of expression taking the form of criminal sanctions, Article 7 (Art. 7) must be taken into account in addition to the more general requirement of lawfulness laid down in Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention (No. 8710/79, Dec. 7.5.82, D.R. 28, p. 77). In the sphere of criminal law, Article 7 para. 1 (Art. 7-1) of the Convention confirms the general principle that legal provisions which interfere with individual rights must be adequately accessible and formulated with sufficient precision to enable the citizen to regulate his conduct (No. 13079/87, Dec. 6.3.89, D.R. 60, pp. 256, 261).   45.   With regard to the requirement of the accessibility of the law, the Commission notes that this issue is not in dispute between the parties. The Commission also notes that the applicants were convicted for a publication dated January 1992 and that they were tried under Article 8 of the Anti-Terror Law which had entered into force on 12 April 1991.   46.   With regard to the requirement of sufficient precision, the Commission recalls that the need to avoid excessive rigidity and to keep pace with changing circumstances means that many laws are inevitably couched in terms which, to a greater or lesser extent, are vague (Eur. Court HR, Kokkinakis v. Greece judgment of 25 May 1993, Series A no. 260-A, p. 19, para. 40).   47.   In this respect both applicants maintain that the text of Article 8 of the Anti-Terror Law was so unclear and the concept of "dissemination of propaganda" against the indivisibility of the State was so vague that their convictions thereunder were not foreseeable. The wording of that provision did not, therefore, enable them to distinguish between permissible and prohibited behaviour. They also submit that, in any event, they were convicted for an act which had not constituted a criminal offence under national or international law at the time it had been committed. They consider, in particular, that offences within the scope of the Anti-Terror Law should have a direct link with the fight against terrorism and that, therefore, propaganda could not constitute an offence under Article 8 of that Law unless it incites people to terrorism. Since, however, the incriminated interview did not incite anybody to terrorism, their convictions were not foreseeable.   48.   The respondent Government maintain that the applicants' allegations in this respect are ill-founded: the contents of the incriminated interview were manifestly contrary to the provisions of the Anti-Terror Law.   49.   The Commission considers that the wording of Article 8 of the Anti-Terror Law, as in force when the offence was committed, was sufficiently specific to enable the applicants, if necessary after taking legal advice, to regulate their conduct in the matter and that the requirement of foreseeability was thus met. It follows that the respective interferences with their rights were prescribed by law.   50.   As regards the aims of the interferences, the Commission notes that the applicants' convictions were part of the efforts of the authorities to combat illegal terrorist activities and to maintain national security and public safety, which are legitimate aims under Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention.   51.   The remaining issue is whether the interferences were "necessary in a democratic society". In this respect the Commission recalls the following principles adopted by the Court (see, as the latest authority, Eur. Court HR, Zana v. Turkey judgment of 25 November 1997, Judgments and Decisions 1997 ...., para. 51):        (i) Freedom of expression, as enshrined in paragraph 1 of Article 10 (Art. 10-1) constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress. It is applicable not only to "information" or "ideas" that are favourably received or are regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb; such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broad-mindedness without which there is no "democratic society".        (ii) 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 European supervision, embracing both the legislation and the decisions applying it, even those given by an independent court.        (iii) In exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, the organs of the Convention must look at the impugned interference in the light of the case as a whole, including the content of the remarks held against the applicant and the context in which he made them. In particular, they must determine whether the interference in issue was "proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued" and whether the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify it are "relevant and sufficient".   52. The Commission further notes that, while freedom of political debate is at the very core of the concept of a democratic society (Eur. Court HR, Lingens v. Austria judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103, p. 26, para. 42), that freedom is not absolute.   A Contracting State is entitled to subject it to certain "restrictions" or "penalties", but the Convention organs are empowered to give the final ruling on whether they are reconcilable with freedom of expression as protected by Article 10 (Art. 10) (Eur. Court HR, the Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom judgment of 26 November 1991, Series A no. 216, p. 30, para. 59(c)). In doing so, the Convention organs must satisfy themselves that the national authorities did apply standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 (Art. 10) and, moreover, that they based themselves on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (Eur. Court HR, Jersild v. Denmark judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, p. 24, para. 31).   53.   Even where, as in the present case, an interference with freedom of expression is based on considerations of national security and public safety and is part of a State's fight against terrorism, the interference can be regarded as necessary only if it is proportionate to the aims pursued. Consequently, the Commission must, with due regard to the circumstances of each case and the State's margin of appreciation, ascertain whether a fair balance has been struck between the individual's fundamental right to freedom of expression and a democratic society's legitimate right to protect itself against the activities of terrorist organisations (cf. above-mentioned Zana judgment, para. 55).   54.   The Commission observes in this connection that Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) also refers to "duties and responsibilities" which the exercise of the freedom of expression carries with it. Thus, it is important for persons addressing the public on sensitive political issues to take care that they do not support unlawful political violence. On the other hand, freedom of expression must be considered to include the right openly to discuss difficult problems such as those facing Turkey in connection with the prevailing unrest in part of its territory in order, for instance, to analyse the background causes of the situation or to express opinions on the solutions to those problems.   55.   The Commission notes that the incriminated publication was an interview with a Turkish sociologist, whose views, as published, appear to have concerned, in the first place, the process by which the P.K.K.'s ideology was taking hold in Turkish society and how the roots of a Kurdish state were being formed. Without expressly advocating the P.K.K.'s role in the Kurdish struggle for independence, the interviewee analysed, mainly from a sociological aspect, this situation in the face of the reactions of the Turkish State.   56.   The Turkish courts held that the publication of the interviewee's opinion amounted to propaganda against the indivisibility of the State in so far as he stated, inter alia, that there is armed resistance in Kurdistan, that violence by the Turkish forces cannot stop the escalation and progress of the P.K.K., that its ideas and action can change the official ideology and its influence in the Kurdish and the Turkish societies will spread and deepen, that national awareness and desire for liberation will become stronger and will spread further, that the idea and feelings for independence will develop and that the P.K.K.'s armed combat for eight years has been the most important cause of certain developments including the withdrawal of Turkish soldiers and the evacuation of police stations in some regions, resulting in the beginning of the formation of a State.   57.   However, in the Commission's view, the contents of the incriminated interview are mainly of an analytical nature. The interviewee expressed his view of the Kurdish question and related matters in moderate terms.   He did not associate himself in any manner with the use of violence in the context of the Kurdish separatist struggle. The applicants did not add any comment to the interview that would indicate their adherence to the use of violence.   58.   The Commission finds that the applicants' convictions amounted to a kind of censure, which was likely to discourage them or others from publishing ideas of a similar kind again in the future. In the context of political debate such a sentence is likely to deter citizens from contributing to public discussion of important political issues (cf. Eur. Court HR, Lingens judgment, op. cit., p. 27, para. 44).   59.   Consequently, the Commission, even taking into account the margin of appreciation of the national authorities in this context, finds that the interferences with the applicants' freedom were not proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued and could, therefore, not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society to achieve the aims of national security and public safety.        CONCLUSION   60.   The Commission concludes, by 31 votes to 1, that there has been a violation of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention.   D.    As regards Article 7 (Art. 7) of the Convention   61.   The applicants complain that their convictions contravened Article 7 para. 1 (Art. 7-1) of the Convention which provides as follows:        "No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account      of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal      offence under national or international law at the time when it      was committed.   Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the      one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was      committed."   62.   Both applicants maintain that the text of Article 8 of the Anti- Terror Law was so unclear and the concept of "dissemination of propaganda" against the indivisibility of the State was so vague that their convictions thereunder were not foreseeable.   The wording of that provision did not, therefore, enable them to distinguish between permissible and prohibited behaviour (see above para. 46).   63.   The respondent Government maintain that the applicants' allegations in this respect are ill-founded, the contents of the incriminated interview being manifestly contrary to the provisions of the Anti-Terror Law (see above para. 47).   64.   The Commission has just found (see above para. 48) that the wording of Article 8 paragraph 1 of the Anti-Terror Law, as in force when the offence was committed, was sufficiently specific to enable the applicants, if necessary after taking legal advice, to regulate their conduct in the matter. It follows that there has been no infringe