CASTELLS v. SPAIN JUDGMENT 16 1. "Prescribed by law" 35. There can be no doubt that the contested prosecution had a legal basis, namely Articles 161 and 162 of the Criminal Code. The applicant did not dispute this, but he alleged that he could not have expected that his defence of truth would be held to be inadmissible, in particular following the adoption of the 1978 Constitution. He maintained that, until 19 May 1982, the Supreme Court had never ruled on the question in relation to the offence of insulting the Government and the admissibility of such a defence for offences of this nature (Article 240) was the subject of differing opinions both among academic writers and in the case-law. 36. In the Government's contention, on the other hand, it is clear from the Spanish legislation, and in particular from Article 461 of the Criminal Code, that in the field in question the defence of truth is admissible only where the insults are directed against civil servants in the performance of their duties; neither before nor after 1978 had the Supreme Court ever allowed the exceptio veritatis for insults which were not directed against individuals. Mr Castells, however, had accused the Government as a whole. 37. In the light of the wording of Article 461 of the Criminal Code, the Court considers this interpretation to be reasonable. There was apparently no precedent - hence the hesitation shown by the Supreme Court in its decision of 19 May 1982 (see paragraph 12 above) -, but that is immaterial here: it was a text which covered in a general fashion several possible types of insult and which had inevitably to be capable of being brought into play in new situations; the above-mentioned decision confined itself to applying it to different circumstances (see, mutatis mutandis, the Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom judgment of 26 November 1991, Series A no. 216, pp. 27-28, para. 53). The Court therefore finds, like the Commission, that the rules governing the contested interference were sufficiently foreseeable for the purposes of Article 10 para. 2 (art. 10-2) of the Convention. 2. Was the aim pursued legitimate? 38. According to the applicant, neither the charge laid against him nor his subsequent conviction pursued a legitimate aim under paragraph 2 of Article 10 (art. 10-2). The acts of which he was accused, as the Supreme Court itself admitted, had not engendered any alarm (see paragraph 9 above); in addition, it appeared from the judgment of 31 October 1983 that the object of the interference had been not to protect public order and national security, but in fact to preserve the respondent Government's honour. 39. However, in its decision of 10 April 1985 - on which the Government relied - the Constitutional Court stressed that the security of the State could be threatened by attempts to discredit democratic institutions (see paragraph 17 above). In his article Mr Castells did not merely describe a very serious