broad terms result in a lack of foreseeability as to it effect. The court concluded that the interference in question was not prescribed by law and accordingly, there has been a violation under Article 10 of the Convention. Similarly, In Otegi Mondragon V Spain no. 2034/07, 15th march 2011 the Court in its decision with regard the penalty imposed on the applicant, observed that the nature and severity of the penalties imposed are factors to be taken into consideration in assessing the “proportionality” of the interference. The court held that, there had been an interference with the exercise of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention. In analyzing the Criminal laws of the Gambia, one can certainly infer that these laws do not guarantee a free press within the spirit of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The restrictions and vagueness with which these laws have been framed and the ambiguity of the mensrea (seditious intention), makes it difficult to discern with any certainty what constitutes seditious offence. The practice of imposing criminal sanctions on sedition, defamation, libel and false news publication has a chilling effect that may unduly restrict the exercise of freedom of expression of journalists. The application of these laws will amount to a continued violation of the internationally guaranteed rights of the Applicants. Having critically examined the criminal laws of The Gambia, the Court declares that the criminal sanctions imposed on the applicants are disproportionate and not 43