European Court of Human Rights decision in OPEN DOOR AND DUBLIN WOMAN VS. IRELAND, (1992) which affirmed that: “It had to examine if the disputed legal measure was in response to an urgent social need and particularly if it was proportionate to the legitimate goal pursued by Ireland; and the court had to monitor closely its compatibility with the principles of a democratic society.” 75. In determining whether such a need exists, attention must be paid to the particular facts of the case and to the circumstances prevailing in the given country at the time. In the instant case the pressing social need is the prevention of crime and the Court will situate its analysis only on this head. Prevention of crime: The case of the Applicants is that the filming and recording of certain activities in their offices and residence without their consent was an unlawful interference in their privacy. The Respondent contend that the Applicants were captured in a secret audio visual recordings where the 1st Applicant was seen in his official chambers accepting monies, sheep and goat from both his clerk and the relative of an accused. The 2nd Applicant was also seen taking the money received from his table and putting it either in his bag or drawer by his side. In so far as 3rd Applicant is concerned the money was brought to him in his house. To the extent that these gifts were meant to influence their judgment, the Applicants’ action amounts to bribery - a crime under the national law. Courts are accepted by the public as being a proper forum for the ascertainment of legal rights and obligations and the settlements of disputes and the public has respect for the confidence in the capacity to fulfill this function. The Applicants, by virtue of their position as judges are public officers who are public figures; “… holding public office and/or using public resources and, more broadly speaking, all those who play a role in public life, whether in politics, the economy, the arts, the social sphere, sport or in any other domain.” 76. See Van Hannover Vs Germany No. 59320/ECHR 2004. In that capacity, they are accountable to the public in the performance of their duty and are susceptible to investigation particularly as it relates to transparency and diligence in the exercise of their judicial functions. The right to be informed is an essential right in a democratic society and public figures must recognize that the special position they occupy in society automatically entails increased pressure to be informed of actions carried out even in their privacy. The conditions upon which the Applicants’ were 27