GROPPERA RADIO AG AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND JUDGMENT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE BERNHARDT 34 really satisfied when a parliament confers unlimited or extremely broad powers on the executive, which becomes the law-making as well as the lawexecuting authority? I have doubts in this respect, but it is not necessary to discuss this question in extenso since I am convinced that the legal basis for the interference in question is not sufficient even if Article 78 of the Government's Ordinance of 17 August 1983 is taken as the starting-point. This Article merely refers to "the provisions of the International Telecommunication Convention and the international Radio Regulations", without giving any further details. I accept that under the Swiss system treaty law is part of domestic law. I also think that technical provisions contained in international texts do not all have to be published in the official gazette; it suffices that they are accessible, which is the case here. But what do these international norms mean and prescribe in the present context? It has never been clarified whether Italy violated its international obligations by permitting or tolerating the radio broadcasts in question. It has never been clarified whether Groppera Radio violated Italian law, including any international norm which is self-executing in Italy. It seems to me to be beyond doubt that Switzerland would not be in breach of any international obligation if it were to permit the retransmission by cable of the programme in question. Under international law it may have the right, but it clearly has no duty, to intervene and to prohibit such retransmission. Taking the foregoing into account and having regard to the only Swiss decision which explains in some detail the situation under Swiss law - that is the decision of 31 July 1984 of the head office of the Swiss Post and Telecommunications Authority -, I see no adequate and sufficiently clear legal provision which can be regarded as a basis for the interference in question. In view of this conclusion, it is not necessary for me to inquire whether the other requirements of Article 10 § 2 (art. 10-2) are satisfied (purpose and necessity of the interference). I would not exclude that the interference in question could in the final event be found to be justified if it had had a solid legal basis. But this is not the case.