14 NISKASAARI AND OTAVAMEDIA OY v. FINLAND JUDGMENT In this connection, as has been remarked in the Court’s case-law, journalists in the position of the first applicant who are disseminating information or commenting on a matter of public interest, as well as their publishers, are to be taken as enjoying a higher level of protection of their freedom of expression under Article 10 than, for example, persons expressing themselves in a private dispute (see Jersild v. Denmark, cited above, § 31; and Flinkkilä and Others v. Finland, no. 25576/04, § 73, 6 April 2010). Also of relevance in the present case for the requisite judicial balancing exercise to be carried out is the fact that the complainant, while entitled to benefit from the protection afforded to every individual’s reputation by Article 8 as part of the right to respect for private life, was himself an investigative journalist involved in making TV documentaries on controversial issues for a public broadcasting company; that is to say, he was engaged in an activity very much in the public domain in a manner and in circumstances where he could himself expect to be the subject of robust scrutiny, comment and criticism regarding his professional conduct. In these two respects the judicial examination by the Appeal Court of the factors justifying the imposition of a criminal sanction on the applicants for the exercise by them of their freedom of expression cannot be said to have paid sufficient attention to the "journalistic" hue of the case. 59. Having regard to all the foregoing factors, and notwithstanding the margin of appreciation afforded to the State in this area, the Court considers that the domestic courts failed to undertake an assessment capable of striking a fair balance between the competing interests at stake under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention. In conclusion, in the Court’s opinion the reasons relied on by the domestic courts, although relevant in so far as they went, were not sufficient to show that the interference complained of was “necessary in a democratic society”. 60. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention in relation to both applicants. III. THE REMAINDER OF THE APPLICATION 61. The applicants also contended that, in violation of Article 6 § 1 and 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention, they had not been allowed to put questions to the opposing party’s witnesses, whereas the opposing party had been able to question their witnesses. Also the evidence provided by the applicants had not been adequately taken into account. They further maintained that, contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the proceedings had taken place in the wrong forum. 62. In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. Accordingly, this part of the