113. It has been agreed that the Constitutional Court in its Judgment of 7th January, 2014 determined that “Articles 61, 62, 67 and 69” of the Press Law were unconstitutional and to that extent, we find that any reference to those Articles is misguided. 114. In submissions however, the Applicant argued that the sentences meted out for breach of any provision of the Press Law are “disproportionately harsh”, as did the Amici. 115. On our part, we find it very difficult to make a finding over penalties and fines. We say so because a comparative analysis of the offences in Burundian Criminal Law has not been made by the Applicant neither can we. We cannot substitute our subjective thinking based on submissions alone to determine that say BIF2,000,000 is an exorbitant figure if imposed as a fine. 116. While therefore, the principle that an offence must attract a penalty comparable to its gravity is agreeable to us, in the present Reference, the context in the making of such a finding is lacking and in that event, we are unable to determine that there is any violation of Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty. 117. In conclusion on Issue (b), we find that only the following Articles of the Press Law do not meet the expectations of Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Constitution: Article 19(b), (g)(i) and part of (j), which lay down a broad set of restrictions of what may be published by the media in Burundi and we have indicated the extent to which they violate the Treaty;  Article 20, which requires journalists to disclose confidential sources of information; Reference No. 5 of 2013 Page 40