Press. That while the Constitutional Court of Burundi appreciated that fact and struck some out of the Articles, a number still remain intact in the Press Law. The cited provisions, it was argued, are vague, broad in content restrictions and lack the clarity required of valid criminal laws. In this regard, the decision in Lingers vs. Austria (supra) was cited and particularly in making the point that criminal sanctions should not be used to hamper the Press in performing its task as a purveyor of information and public watchdog. 70. In a nutshell, the Amici, like the Applicant, found fault in both the spirit and content of the Press Law and urged the Court to allow the Reference as framed. Determination on Issue (b) 71. From the submissions above, it is clear that the Applicant and the Amici have taken the view that, looking at the freedom of the press and freedom of expression as vital components of every democracy, the Press Law does not meet that test and more so, in spirit and content, is a violation of Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty. 72. The Respondent on the other hand has taken the view that the Press Law was tested by the Constitutional Court of Burundi and was found wanting in only a few Articles. That this Court must similarly and specifically find and hold that Articles 6(d) and 7(2) have not been violated. 73. Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty, for avoidance of doubt, provide as follows:- Reference No. 5 of 2013 Page 25