23 CASTELLS v. SPAIN JUDGMENT CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE DE MEYER CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE DE MEYER (Translation) In the disputed article Mr Castells drew up a long list of murders and attacks carried out in the Basque Country1 and denounced the impunity, described by him as outrageous (insultante impunidad), enjoyed by their perpetrators2. He complained of the inaction of the authorities3, who, he alleged, had done nothing to identify them, although the same authorities had displayed great diligence "in other cases" (en otros supuestos)4. He saw this as evidence of collusion with the guilty parties5 and attributed responsibility for "these acts" (estas acciones) to the Government and its supporters6. These were undoubtedly serious accusations7. In levelling them, however, he was merely legitimately exercising his right to freedom of opinion and of expression. This right was infringed in the case before the Court because Mr Castells was prosecuted and convicted for having written and published his views on a question of general interest; in a "democratic society" it is not acceptable that a citizen be punished for doing this. In this connection it makes no difference whether Mr Castells was right or wrong. The question of the defence of truth was not relevant in relation to his assessment of the situation8; this is especially so because the murders and attacks referred to in the article really occurred and the impunity of their perpetrators does not even seem to have been denied. It may be worth adding that as far as insults, false accusation and defamation are concerned there are no grounds for affording better protection to the institutions than to individuals, or to the Government than the oppposition9. 1 Paragraph 48 of the judgment. See the first and second paragraphs of the article (paragraph 7 of the judgment). 2 Title of the article and paragraphs 45 and 48 of the judgment. 3 Paragraph 39 of the judgment. 4 See in particular the third and sixth paragraphs of the article. 5 Paragraph 39 of the judgment. 6 Last paragraph of the article and paragraphs 39 and 45 of the judgment. 7 Paragraph 45 of the judgment. 8 See on this point the separate opinion of Mr Pekkanen, p. 29 below, and, mutatis mutandis, the Lingens v. Austria judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103, pp. 27-28, paras. 45 and 46. 9 I cannot therefore approve the "strengthened protection" afforded the Government under Articles 161 and 162 of the Spanish Criminal Code (paragraph 20 of the judgment).