- 31 were neither vague nor uncertain. It submits that the sentence pronounced against the Applicant is consistent with recent European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) judgments and was a necessary and proportionate response aimed at protecting the rights of Placide Nikiema, the Prosecutor of the Republic, considering the prejudice he suffered and the gravity of the statements made against him by the Applicant. 118. To be able to rule on the allegation by the Applicant that his imprisonment, being ordered to pay a huge fine, damages and court costs, violate his right to freedom of expression, the Court will first mention the provisions of the relevant Burkinabe law in the instant case. A. Provisions of Burkinabe law challenged in the instant case 119. The Court notes that the 2 June 1991 Constitution of Burkina Faso upholds freedom of expression and freedom of the press as fundamental liberties. Article 8 of the Constitution provides that "freedom of expression, the press and the right to information are guaranteed. Every individual has the right to express and disseminate his opinions within the limits of the laws and regulations in force". 120. In the present case, the provisions of Burkinabe law challenged by the Applicant are those of Article 109, 110 and 111 of the Information Code of 30 December 1993 and those of Article 178 of the Penal Code of 13 November 1996. 121. Articles 109, 110 and 111 of the Information Code provide as follows: Article 1 09: "Any allegation or imputation of a fact which undermines the honour or image of a person or profession amounts to defamation. Direct publication or by way of reproduction of such allegation or imputation is punishable even if it is done in conditioned circumstances u7 or if it is aimed at a 31/7-4