“people who assume highly visible public roles must necessarily face a higher degree of criticism than private citizens; otherwise public debate may be stifled altogether”. In ALTUG TANKER AKCAM V TURKEY application no. 27520/07 25" October 2011 where the Applicant complained that the existence of Article 301 of the Turkish Criminal Code interfered with his right to freedom of expression, the Court held that in determining whether the contested legislation is in itself compatible with the Cenvention’s provisions. Article 391 of the.Turkish Criminal Code and the criminal investigation commenced against the applicant does not meet the “quality of law” required by the court’s settled case-law, since its unacceptable 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, 15" 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 expression under Article 10 of the Convention. 46 right to freedom of