12 ALTUĞ TANER AKÇAM v. TURKEY JUDGMENT A. Whether there has been an interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression 1. The parties’ submissions (a) The applicant 55. The applicant alleged that there had been an interference with his rights under Article 10 and that he could claim to be the victim of a violation of his rights under the Convention since he had been directly affected by the investigation which was opened against him notwithstanding that it eventually resulted in a non-prosecution. He was still directly affected by the ongoing risk that he would be subject to further investigation or prosecution under Article 301 for his opinions on the Armenian issue. 56. The applicant maintained that individuals had been successfully prosecuted in the past under Article 301 and other provisions of the Turkish Criminal Code for describing the massacre of Armenians as “genocide”. The Government could not guarantee that in the future he would not face the harassment of investigation or the threat of prosecution under Article 301 or other provisions for expressing that opinion. 57. In the instant case, the tangible fear of prosecution not only cast a shadow over the applicant’s professional activities, but also caused him considerable stress and anxiety, and seriously constrained his activities. In fact, since the submission of the present application in June 2007, the applicant had effectively stopped writing on the Armenian issue. The pressures faced by him had also to be considered having regard to the fact that his colleague and close friend Hrant Dink, a journalist who had been prosecuted and convicted under Article 301 for his opinion on the massacre of Armenians, had later been murdered by an extreme nationalist. It was widely believed that Hrant Dink had been targeted by extremists because of the stigma attached to his criminal conviction for “insulting Turkishness”. 58. Although the Government had attempted to demonstrate that the risk of prosecution was slight in their estimation, they had not denied that a continuing risk existed. That estimation depended wholly upon the exercise of discretion by the public prosecutors and/or the Ministry of Justice in respect of prosecutions under Article 301. Yet despite the amendment of Article 301 in May 2008, legal proceedings against those affirming the Armenian “genocide” had continued unabated. The Government’s policy on prohibiting such characterisation of the massacre of Armenians had not substantially changed and could not be predicted with any certainty in the future. 59. Relying particularly on the Court’s judgments in the cases of Campbell and Cosans v. the United Kingdom (25 February 1982, Series A no. 48), Times Newspapers Ltd v. the United Kingdom (nos. 1 and 2),