4 SMAJIĆ v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA DECISION 9. As regards the interpretation of the relevant law, the Appellate Court concluded, on the basis of expert witnesses’ statements, that the Internet forum had been “closed” only in respect of participation, since that act had required registration, but that the contents had been fully available for access by anyone, and could thus be considered a “public place”. It also concluded that for the element of the crime of incitement to hatred or intolerance to obtain it was not necessary for the applicant’s action actually to have had negative consequences, but only that they had been “objectively capable of producing such effects”. The Appellate Court agreed that the posts had been written in a hypothetical form (that is to say in respect of a war scenario that had little possibility of realisation). However, taking into account the full content of the posts, the court concluded that they could not be considered to constitute the expression of free thought on topical matters of general interest, but rather a highly inappropriate form of dialogue advocating a strategy of behaviour towards one of the ethnic groups in BD. The applicant had used expressions which were highly insulting to members of an ethnic group, such as “this stinking Christmas”, “get rid of the danger behind our backs”, “the city centre should then be slowly cleansed” and “Serbs who came from different shitholes live there”. The court held that the applicant’s claim that the police and the prosecutor had given his statements to the media only in order to be able to stage his prosecution was totally unsubstantiated and stemmed from the misinterpretation of the limits of freedom of expression. It concluded that freedom of expression was significantly reduced in multi-ethnic communities, particularly when it resulted in offending the religious or national feelings of the members of religious or ethnic groups in such communities. 10. On 30 January 2013 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal, relying on Articles 6, 9, 10 and 14 of the Convention. As to the complaints under Articles 6 and 10, the applicant essentially relied on the same arguments as those indicated in his appeal to the Appellate Court (see paragraph 7 above). 11. On 20 April 2016 the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Constitutional Court”) rejected the applicant’s appeal as manifestly ill-founded. The court held that the Basic Court and the Appellate Court had correctly applied both the procedural and the substantive law and had given well-reasoned and detailed decisions. The Basic Court had described the method by which it had assessed the evidence and had established the facts, which did not appear arbitrary. Moreover, both lower courts had described in a detailed and clear manner what constituted the elements of the criminal offence in question concerning the applicant’s actions and had addressed all the applicant’s arguments. They had also given sufficient and relevant reasons for finding the applicant guilty. As regards the right of defence, the Constitutional Court agreed that the applicant’s right to legal assistance had not been restricted. The