RIVADULLA DURÓ v. SPAIN DECISION own opinion (see paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 above). Furthermore, the punishment imposed for these statements about the King Emeritus was only of a financial nature (see paragraph 8 above). 48. In relation to the applicant’s conviction for the offence of insulting State institutions, the Court notes that the applicant repeatedly and without any evidence accused members of the police force, whom he called Nazis, of crimes such as torture and the murder of immigrants (see paragraph 2 above). 49. The Court has previously found that it was within the legitimate exercise of the freedom of expression to describe, at a press conference, the police’s action against an applicant as torture, given the colloquial nature used by the applicant to criticise that action (see Toranzo Gomez v. Spain, no. 26922/14, §§ 58-63, 20 November 2018). In that judgment, the Court found that the applicant had been subjected to the use of physical force by specified police officers and noted that the penalty imposed on him could lead to imprisonment if the fine was not paid. 50. In contrast, in the present case the applicant accused members of the police in general of crimes of torture or murder and described them as Nazis, without providing any evidence for his assertions. Moreover, he made those accusations repeatedly and via a social media application which allowed him to reflect on their content and on which his large number of sympathisers were able to access his messages free of charge. In the light of the content of the applicant’s messages, the Court considers that the Audiencia Nacional, when convicting the applicant as a repeat offender, took care to assess his guilt on the basis of the criteria defined by the Court’s case-law, having regard to the requirements of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention, and after weighing up the various interests involved (see paragraphs 9 and 11 above). The Court sees no serious reason to substitute its assessment for that of the national authorities, recalling the importance, in a case such as this, of the reasoning of the national courts. 51. The Court therefore concludes that the applicant’s criminal conviction (see paragraphs 8 and 10 above) cannot be considered disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. 52. In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that the complaints under Article 10 of the Convention are manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. B. Complaints under Articles 13 and 18 of the Convention 53. The applicant alleged a breach of Article 13 of the Convention in that the Constitutional Court had declared his amparo appeal inadmissible for lack of justification of its constitutional significance, without considering it on the merits. 16