20 OTEGI MONDRAGON v. SPAIN JUDGMENT symbolic responsibility on his part in his position at the helm of the State, subject to respect for his personal reputation. 57. In that connection, the Court points out that the remarks at issue in the instant case did not concern the King’s private life (see, conversely, Standard Verlags GmbH v. Austria (no. 2), no. 21277/05, 4 June 2009, a case concerning strictly personal aspects of the Austrian President’s private life; see also Von Hannover v. Germany, no. 59320/00, § 64, ECHR 2004-VI) or his personal honour, nor did they amount to a gratuitous personal attack against him (see, conversely, Pakdemirli, cited above, § 46). It also notes that, in the view of the Basque Country High Court of Justice, the applicant’s statements had been made in a public and political context unconnected to the “innermost core of individual dignity” (see paragraph 14 above). Nor did the remarks in question criticise the manner in which the King performed his official duties in a particular sphere or attribute any individual responsibility to him in the commission of a specific criminal offence. The applicant’s comments related solely to the King’s institutional responsibility as the symbol and Head of the State apparatus and of the forces which, according to the applicant, had tortured the editors and directors of the newspaper Euskaldunon Egunkaria. 58. Lastly, as regards the penalty imposed, while it is perfectly legitimate for the institutions of the State, as guarantors of the institutional public order, to be protected by the competent authorities, the dominant position occupied by those institutions requires the authorities to display restraint in resorting to criminal proceedings (see, mutatis mutandis, Castells, cited above, § 46; see also the Council of Europe materials, paragraphs 30 and 31 above). The Court observes in that regard that the nature and severity of the penalties imposed are also factors to be taken into consideration in assessing the “proportionality” of the interference. It notes the particularly harsh nature of the penalty imposed: the applicant was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment. His criminal conviction also resulted in his right to stand for election being suspended for the duration of his sentence, even though he was a politician. 59. The Court has previously held that, although sentencing is in principle a matter for the national courts, the imposition of a prison sentence for an offence in the area of political speech will be compatible with freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention only in exceptional circumstances, notably where other fundamental rights have been seriously impaired, as, for example, in the case of hate speech or incitement to violence (see Bingöl v. Turkey, no. 36141/04, § 41, 22 June 2010, and, mutatis mutandis, Cumpănă and Mazăre v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 115, ECHR 2004-XI). It refers in that regard to the guidance given in the materials of the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe concerning prison sentences in the area of political speech (see paragraphs 30 and 31 above).