RIVADULLA DURÓ v. SPAIN DECISION 33. In the present case, the applicant’s conviction was based on the finding that his messages on Twitter justified and glorified terrorism, individuals convicted of being members of terrorist organisations, and offences committed by them. The messages were also found to incite hatred and enmity on various grounds. The domestic courts held that the applicant’s messages were not covered by freedom of expression. In the Court’s view this was not, as the applicant claimed, a criminal punishment for mere disagreement with the political or social ideology of others, but rather, given the way in which the disagreement was expressed and disseminated, it was a punishment for incitement, provocation and the risk that third parties, inflamed by the statements in question, might perpetrate actual violence against specific institutions and groups just as the individuals convicted of being members of terrorist organisations cited as an example had done. The Court also observes that the applicant’s messages were easily and freely available online and thus had the potential to reach a large number of people, including those of a young age. 34. The Court takes note of the domestic decisions (see paragraph 7 above) and observes that in those decisions the courts found that the aim of the applicant’s tweets was laudatio, a form of praise for persons acknowledged as being members of violent terrorist groups, without any parliamentary legitimacy, who had been sentenced by the courts for their criminal activities, which had occurred not long ago. The terrorist attacks committed by them were therefore still fresh in the country’s collective mind, which justified an enhanced degree of regulation of statements relating to them (see Jorge López, § 18; Perinçek, § 250; and Z.B. v. France, § 59, all cited above). 35. Answering the question whether the messages could be seen as a direct or indirect call or justification for violence, hatred or intolerance, the domestic courts pointed to explicit references to violent or terrorist methods (see paragraph 7 above). To sum up, the tweets communicated the general idea that recourse to violence and terrorism was justified. The Court agrees that those statements went far beyond what could be perceived as protest messages, as the applicant described them, and beyond the acceptable limits of criticism (see Jorge López, cited above, § 19). 36. Concerning the manner in which the statements were made, and their capacity to lead to harmful consequences, the domestic judgments highlighted the fact that the messages had been especially targeted at young people, and that they had been conveyed to a wide audience through Twitter. 37. The Court reiterates that it is in the first place for the national authorities, especially the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law and that its task is only to review under Article 10 the decisions delivered by the competent domestic courts pursuant to their power of appreciation. In so doing, it must satisfy itself that the national authorities based their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see M’Bala M’Bala 13