RIVADULLA DURÓ v. SPAIN DECISION of murder, injuries and torture, which are incorporated into offensive content and intense hatred and continued accusations against them, despite court rulings having been obtained that exonerate the police and civil guards in question of responsibility for the acts indicated, as a consequence of which he rails against the judicial authorities, with no further proof on his part other than his own words and statements, without any other basis or evidence whatsoever. ... From all this, as previously discussed, we can see the existence of repeated tweets in which, far from expressing an opinion or criticising a particular action of the police, the judiciary or the prison administration, hate speech is imposed by the defendant, with the aim of provoking a violent response from those who read or examine his messages against the above-mentioned State institutions, since by reiterating the accusation of murder, he makes them appear as murderers, prompting their social rejection.” 12. The applicant appealed against his conviction. On 14 September 2018 the Audiencia Nacional reduced the applicant’s sentence for the offence of public praise or justification of terrorism to nine months’ imprisonment and a fine of EUR 5,040. The court dismissed the appeal in so far as it concerned the other offences. 13. On 7 May 2020 the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant. It noted that the exercise of freedom of expression and opinion was subject to other constitutional rights and requirements. 14. On 23 November 2020 the Constitutional Court declared an amparo appeal by the applicant inadmissible for lack of justification of constitutional significance. 15. Following a final judgment of the Audiencia Nacional of 31 March 2014, the applicant had already been sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for a previous offence of glorification of terrorism. The execution of that sentence was suspended on condition that the applicant did not commit a further offence. The conviction forming the subject of his application to the Court led to the lifting of the suspension of the previous sentence and, as a result, the applicant was imprisoned. C. Relevant legal framework 16. The relevant provisions of the Criminal Code (Institutional Law no. 10/1992 of 23 November 1995) read as follows: Article 80 “Judges or courts may, by a reasoned decision, suspend the execution of custodial sentences not exceeding two years when it is reasonable to expect that the execution of the sentence is not necessary to prevent the offender from committing further offences in the future.” 8