20 EINARSSON v. ICELAND JUDGMENT - SEPARATE OPINION in a ‘ruthless debate’ which he had instigated” (see paragraph 51 of the judgment; see also paragraph 52, in fine). With all due respect, I am afraid that this is not how the Supreme Court’s reliance on the “ruthless debate” context should be viewed. In my opinion, the Supreme Court referred to that debate primarily as the context for the invective on the part of X, not as the context for the assessment of the meaning of the word “rapist”. That assessment was based, as explained above, on the features of the Instagram picture. The choice of the relevant context is not without importance. On the basis of the existence of the “ruthless debate” as the context of the impugned expression, the majority blame the Supreme Court for disregarding the chronological link between the publication of the picture and the discontinuance of the criminal proceedings for alleged rape (paragraph 51 of the judgment). But when one reads the Supreme Court’s assessment as based on the characteristics of the picture, the fact that the picture was published shortly after the discontinuance of the criminal proceedings becomes largely irrelevant1, and in my opinion certainly not a reason to set aside the Supreme Court’s assessment. 6. In conclusion, the Supreme Court enjoyed a certain margin of appreciation in its assessment of the meaning to be attributed to a term used in a given context. It found that, by using the term “rapist”, X was not stating that the applicant had committed the crime of rape, but was merely expressing disapproval in the form of invective. Having regard to the subsidiary nature of the European Court’s role, there is in my opinion no “cogent reason” to depart from this assessment. On the basis of its characterisation of the impugned expression, the Supreme Court concluded that X had acted within the limits of his freedom of expression. In my opinion, the Supreme Court thus struck a fair balance between the competing rights at stake. At least irrelevant from the point of view of Article 8 of the Convention. It should be noted that the applicant did not complain of a violation of his right to be presumed innocent, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2. 1