CASTELLS v. SPAIN JUDGMENT 20 the applicant's freedom of expression was not necessary in a democratic society. 49. The Government also relied on the relatively lenient nature of the sanction imposed, but in the light of the foregoing conclusion the Court does not have to examine this argument. 50. In sum, there has been a violation of Article 10 (art. 10). II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 10 (art. 14+10) 51. Mr Castells also claimed to be the victim of discrimination because other persons had expressed similar views without any criminal sanctions being imposed on them. He relied on Article 14 (art. 14), which is worded as follows: "The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status." The Government denied this assertion. 52. As this question is not a fundamental aspect of the case, the Court does not consider it necessary to deal with it separately (see, inter alia, the Airey v. Ireland judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, p. 16, para. 30). III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 50 (art. 50) 53. According to Article 50 (art. 50): "If the Court finds that a decision or a measure taken by a legal authority or any other authority of a High Contracting Party is completely or partially in conflict with the obligations arising from the ... Convention, and if the internal law of the said Party allows only partial reparation to be made for the consequences of this decision or measure, the decision of the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party." 54. The applicant sought in the first place the publication of a summary of the Court's judgment in the newspapers of the Basque Country, of Madrid and the rest of the State, and the removal of any reference to his conviction in the central criminal records (Registro Central de Penados y Rebeldes). The Court points out that it does not have jurisdiction to make such orders (see, mutatis mutandis, the Manifattura FL v. Italy judgment of 27 February 1992, Series A no. 230-B, p. 21, para. 22).