22 MURPHY v. IRELAND JUDGMENT and perhaps to an even greater degree, there is no uniform European conception of the requirements of "the protection of the rights of others" in relation to attacks on their religious convictions. What is likely to cause substantial offence to persons of a particular religious persuasion will vary significantly from time to time and from place to place, especially in an era characterised by an ever growing array of faiths and denominations. By reason of their direct and continuous contact with the vital forces of their countries, State authorities are in principle in a better position than the international judge to give an opinion on the exact content of these requirements with regard to the rights of others as well as on the "necessity" of a "restriction" intended to protect from such material those whose deepest feelings and convictions would be seriously offended (the above-cited Wingrove judgment, at § 58). The Court therefore observes that it is this margin of appreciation which distinguishes the present case from the above-cited case of Vgt Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland. In the latter case, the Court considered that the advertisement prohibited concerned a matter of public interest to which a reduced margin of appreciation applied. 68. It is for the European Court to give a final ruling on the restriction's compatibility with the Convention and it will do so by assessing in the circumstances of a particular case, inter alia, whether the interference corresponded to a “pressing social need” and whether it was “proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued”. Indeed, such supervision can be considered to be all the more necessary given the rather open-ended notion of respect for the religious beliefs of others and the risks of excessive interferences with freedom of expression under the guise of action taken against allegedly offensive material. In this regard, the scope of the restriction in the legislation is especially important. The Court's task in this case is therefore to determine whether the reasons relied on by the national authorities to justify the measures interfering with the applicant's freedom of expression are “relevant and sufficient” for the purposes of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention (the above-cited Wingrove judgment, §§ 53 and 58-59). 69. Moreover, it is recalled that the potential impact of the medium of expression concerned is an important factor in the consideration of the proportionality of an interference. The Court has acknowledged that account must be taken of the fact that the audio-visual media have a more immediate and powerful effect than the print media (Jersild v. Denmark, judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, § 31). (b) The application of those principles to the present case 70. The Court notes at the outset that the nature and purpose of the expression contained in the relevant advertisement accords with it being treated as religious, as opposed to commercial, expression even if the