107. Article 20 of the Press law obligates journalists to “reveal their sources of information before the competent authorities“ in situations where the information relates to State security, public order, defence secrets and the moral and physical integrity of one or more persons. 108. On this issue, we are of the same mind as the Court in Goodwin vs. UK (supra) where it was stated as follows:“Protection of journalistic sources is one of the basic conditions for press freedom .... Without such protection, sources may be deterred from assisting the press in informing the public on matters of public interest. As a result, the vital public-watchdog role of the press may be undermined and the ability of the press to provide accurate and reliable information may be adversely affected.” 109. We have taken the above position because whereas the four issues named are important in any democratic state, the way of dealing with State secrets is by enacting other laws to deal with the issue and not by forcing journalists to disclose their confidential sources. 110. As for the issue of moral and physical integrity of any person, the obligation to disclose a source is unreasonable and privacy laws elsewhere can be used to deal with the matter. There are in any event other less restrictive ways of dealing with these issues. 111. We have no hesitation in holding that Article 20 does not meet the expectations of democracy and is in violation of Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty. V. Fines and Penalties 112. The contested fines and penalties are contained in Chapter VII of the Press Law which is headed, “Penalties and Punishments for Press Offences.” Reference No. 5 of 2013 Page 39