18 OTEGI MONDRAGON v. SPAIN JUDGMENT requirement to furnish facts in support of a value judgment is less stringent if the information is already known to the general public (see Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, § 86, ECHR 2001-VIII). In the present case, the Court observes that the Supreme Court stated in its judgment that the impugned remarks had been value judgments rather than statements of fact. However, it took the view that the context in which they had been made did not justify their seriousness, in view of the fact that the proceedings concerning the allegations of torture made by the management of the newspaper Euskaldunon Egunkaria had been discontinued for lack of evidence. The Court observes that there was a sufficiently strong link between the applicant’s remarks and the allegations of ill-treatment made public by the editor-in-chief of Euskaldunon Egunkaria on his release. It further notes that the terms used by the applicant could be understood as forming part of a wider public debate on the possible implication of the State security forces in cases of ill-treatment. 54. Turning to the expressions themselves, the Court accepts that the language used by the applicant could have been considered provocative. However, while any individual who takes part in a public debate of general concern – like the applicant in the instant case – must not overstep certain limits, particularly with regard to respect for the reputation and rights of others, a degree of exaggeration, or even provocation, is permitted; in other words, a degree of immoderation is allowed (see Mamère, cited above, § 25). The Court observes that, while some of the remarks made in the applicant’s speech portrayed the institution embodied by the King in a very negative light, with a hostile connotation, they did not advocate the use of violence, nor did they amount to hate speech, which in the Court’s view is the essential element to be taken into account (see, conversely, Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 62, ECHR 1999-IV). It also notes that neither the domestic courts nor the Government sought to justify the applicant’s conviction by reference to incitement to violence or hate speech. The Court further takes account of the fact that the remarks were made orally during a press conference, so that the applicant had no possibility of reformulating, refining or retracting them before they were made public (see Fuentes Bobo v. Spain, no. 39293/98, § 46, 29 February 2000, and Birol v. Turkey, no. 44104/98, § 30, 1 March 2005). 55. Next, the Court notes that, in convicting the applicant, the domestic courts relied on Article 490 § 3 of the Criminal Code, which affords the Head of State a greater degree of protection than other persons (protected by the ordinary law on insults) or institutions (such as the government and Parliament) with regard to the disclosure of information or opinions concerning them, and which lays down heavier penalties for insulting statements (see paragraphs 27-29 above). In that connection, the Court has already stated that providing increased protection by means of a special law on insults will not, as a rule, be in keeping with the spirit of the Convention.