cannot pass the test we set out above and are therefore in violation of Articles 6(d) and 7(2) to that extent only. 102. We therefore find and hold that “the restrictions not to disseminate information on the stability of the currency, offensive articles or reports regarding public or private persons, information that may harm the credit of the State and national economy, diplomacy, scientific research and reports of Commissions of Inquiry by the State” in Article 19 of the Press Law are in violation of the principles enshrined in Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty. III. Right of Reply and Correction 103. Chapter.VI of the Press Law is headed “The Right of Reply, Correction and Redress.” 104. On this point, we shall spend very little time because looking at the authorities cited by both the Applicant and the Amici Curiae, it is our view that in the market place of ideas, if a person is prejudiced in any way by a publication (as is the language of Article 48 of the Press Law), there is good reason to entitle that person to a reply, correction and if need be, a redress. 105. Elsewhere above, we have indicated that we find no fault with any law that requires a journalist to publish any accurate information. In the event that he does not, then Chapter VI of the Press Law protects a party prejudiced by such inaccurate reporting. Such a party should, as a maxim of democracy, be entitled to a right of reply. 106. In any democracy, even victims have rights and we see no violation of Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty as alleged on this issue. IV. Disclosure of Confidential Sources Reference No. 5 of 2013 Page 38