112. The Court also notes in the present case that the restrictions provided for in paragraph 3 of Article 410 of the Criminal Code are vague and do not pursue a legitimate aim, since there is no compelling need to restrict citizens to certain means of communication thereby depriving them of having recourse to others which are available to them to make technical comments on court decisions and thus to exercise their right to freedom of expression. 113. The Court also considers that there are no national security, public order or public morality considerations for such a restriction since paragraph 1 of the Article already punishes the discrediting of a judicial decision with the aim of undermining the authority or independence of the judiciary. 114. In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that the Respondent State violated the right to freedom of opinion and expression protected by Article 9 (2) of the Charter read together with Article 19 of the ICCPR. E. On the alleged violation of the right to an effective remedy for the protection of human rights 115. The Applicant asserts that citizens have no remedy to contest laws passed by parliament prior to promulgation. He avers that the same is true for judges with regard to measures taken by the HJC against them. 116. As regards citizens, he submits that according to Article 97(3) of the Constitution, organic laws may be promulgated only after the Constitutional Court has declared them consistent with the Constitution. He avers that Article 121 of the Constitution bars citizens from pursuing this remedy to challenge the constitutionality of bills prior to promulgation by conferring this jurisdiction solely on the President of the Republic and the members of the National Assembly. 32