RIVADULLA DURÓ v. SPAIN DECISION 1. Conviction for public praise or justification of terrorism 28. In a case serving as a clear precedent for the present case, namely Jorge López v. Spain ((dec.) [Committee], no. 54140/21, 20 September 2022), the Court declared the application inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. In that case, the applicant’s conviction was based on the findings that his songs and videos justified and glorified terrorism, in particular, the GRAPO terrorist group, individuals convicted of being its members, and crimes committed by it. The songs were also found to incite hatred and enmity on various grounds. The domestic courts found that the songs had openly called for violent acts, communicated to the audience the idea that recourse to violence and terrorism was justified, approved of terrorist methods and acts, and praised attacks that had claimed many lives. The Court also observed that those songs were easily and freely available online and had been performed at concerts, and thus had the potential to reach a large number of people, including those of a young age (see Jorge López, cited above, § 17). 29. The Court also considered that the songs could be seen as a direct or indirect call or justification for violence, hatred or intolerance. The lyrics directly suggested injuring or killing politicians, judges, the security forces, the rich, the royal family and those perceived as ideological opponents. The Court agreed that those statements went far beyond what could be perceived as “protest songs”, as they were described by the applicant, and the acceptable limits of criticism (see Jorge López, cited above, § 19). 30. The Court further found that the domestic courts’ assessment of the facts had been reasonable. It concluded that the Appeals Division, in convicting the applicant, had taken 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. Regarding the nature and severity of the sanctions, in the light of the circumstances and the reasoning of the domestic courts, the Court concluded that the applicant’s criminal conviction could not be considered disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. 31. The Court’s findings in Jorge López (cited above) are fully applicable to the case now under analysis. 32. Regarding statements that may constitute a call to violence, the Court has regard to the following factors: (i) whether the statements were made against a tense political or social background; (ii) whether the statements, fairly construed and seen in their immediate or wider context, could be seen as a direct or indirect call for violence or as a justification of violence, hatred or intolerance; and (iii) the manner in which the statements were made, and their capacity – direct or indirect – to lead to harmful consequences (see Jorge López, § 16; Perinçek, §§ 204-07; and Erkizia Almandoz, §§ 40-41, all cited above). 12