10 NIX v. GERMANY DECISION German political affairs that domestic politics have developed in a manner contrary to the rule of law by tolerating anti-constitutional efforts of the tendency embodied by the respective symbol. Such a perception and ensuing reactions could significantly impair political peace. Article 86a of the Criminal Code furthermore seeks to prevent the use of the symbols of prohibited anti-constitutional organisations – irrespective of the intentions of such use – becoming common again so that the objective of banning such symbols from German political life is not achieved, resulting in a situation in which those in favour of the political goals for which those symbols stand could use such symbols without danger. 31. Still according to the 1972 judgment, it is not necessary, given the purpose of Article 86a of the Criminal Code, for the use of a symbol to fall within the provision’s scope, that there be proof that the symbol was used to support anti-constitutional objectives, that the use has to be understood as supporting the objectives of the prohibited organisation, or that the use constituted a concrete threat to constitutional democracy. The provision bans such symbols, as a rule, from German political life and establishes a “communicative taboo” (kommunikatives Tabu) (see Federal Constitutional Court, no. 1 BvR 150/03, decision of 1 June 2006). 32. In the light of this broad scope of Article 86a of the Criminal Code, domestic courts have, in addition to the scenarios covered by Article 86 § 3 of the Code, restricted its scope and exempted uses which do not contravene the provision’s purpose or are even supposed to reinforce its purpose (see Federal Court of Justice, no. 3 StR 486/06, judgment of 15 March 2007). It follows from that judgment that the use of a symbol of an unconstitutional organisation thus does not fall within the scope of Article 86a of the Code, where the opposition to the unconstitutional organisation and its ideology is obvious and clear and can immediately be recognised by an observer. In such cases, imposing criminal liability would be difficult to reconcile with the right to freedom of expression of persons who want to protest against the revival of Nazi ideas by striking at the symbols embodying them. However, where the display has multiple meanings or where the rejection of Nazi ideas cannot be clearly recognised, such a display contravenes the provision’s purpose and is not exempted from its scope. Moreover, in the light of the provision’s “taboo function”, it is not sufficient that a certain conduct pursued the aim of criticising in order for it to be exempted from the provision’s scope (see Federal Constitutional Court, no. 1 BvR 204/03, decision of 23 March 2006). For an assessment of whether or not a certain use of a symbol of an unconstitutional organisation is to be exempted from the scope of Article 86a of the Criminal Code, all circumstances of the case have to be taken into account (see Federal Court of Justice, no. 3 StR 164/08, decision of 1 October 2008). 33. In the light of Himmler’s function as the sole leader of the SS, an unconstitutional organisation, publicly showing a picture of him in SS