98. In this regard, the Court notes that all the violations alleged by the Applicant relate in one way or another, directly or indirectly, to the non-execution of the aforementioned decisions. 99. The Court also notes that it has not received any report from the Respondent State on the execution of the said decisions, nor does the Respondent State dispute that it has not executed them. 100. In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that the Respondent State violated Article 30 of the Protocol. D. On the alleged violation of the right to freedom of opinion and expression 101. The Applicant points out that Article 410(1)(3) of the Respondent State's Penal Code provides that: Any person who, by acts, speech or writings, publicly seeks to discredit a judicial act or decision, under conditions likely to undermine the authority of the judiciary or its independence, shall be liable to one (1) month to six (06) months' imprisonment and a fine of One Hundred Thousand (100,000) to One Million (1,000,000) CFA francs, or to one of these two penalties only. ...The foregoing provisions shall in no case be applied to purely technical comments in specialized journals, nor to acts, speech or writings calling for the revision of a conviction. 102. He alleges that these provisions infringe the freedom of opinion and expression protected by Article 19 of the ICCPR by restricting the right to freedom of the media to specialized journals and by granting the freedom to criticize a court decision only in respect of the review of a conviction, rather than in respect of the exercise of all remedies. 29