8 NISKASAARI AND OTAVAMEDIA OY v. FINLAND JUDGMENT see why the editor-in-chief should be judged differently to the first applicant, to whom the same criteria should have been applied. 35. The applicants also pointed out that the District Court, when dismissing the charges against the first applicant, had found that his criticism had not overstepped the limits of propriety. When doing so, the District Court had not referred at all to Article 10 of the Convention, including, in particular, the “necessity” requirement in Article 10 § 2. It had found that neither the first applicant nor the complainant had made a false statement. The complainant could himself be criticised for having used similar expressions in his programme. Moreover, both parties had had the opportunity to state their opposing views in Seura magazine. (b) The Government 36. The Government acknowledged that the conviction of the first applicant and the ordering of both applicants to pay damages and costs had amounted to an interference with the exercise of their freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention. However, in their submission the impugned measures had had a basis in Chapter 24, section 9, of the Penal Code and in Chapter 5, section 6, of the Tort Liability Act which fulfilled both the requirements of precision and clarity. The interference had thus been “prescribed by law”. In addition, it had pursued the legitimate aim of the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, as required by Article 10 § 2 of the Convention. 37. As to the necessity in a democratic society, the Government noted that the prosecutor had taken into account the socially significant role of the press and had paid attention to the question of whether the case involved disclosure of information of significance for the general interest in society. Subsequently, when the District Court had decided to dismiss the charges, the prosecutor had used his discretion and had not found it appropriate to appeal against that judgment. 38. The Government stressed that the issue at hand was a dispute between two journalists, namely two persons whose profession was to pursue critical journalism. Journalists who used strong expressions and pursued so-called investigative journalism could be expected to tolerate even severe criticism of their activities. In the present case, the national courts had weighed in the balance in their judgments different considerations going to freedom of expression and the protection of private life and had exercised the discretion available to them. It was the Appeal Court which had considered that the limits of acceptable criticism had been exceeded, holding that the first applicant had intentionally made serious accusations against the complainant and had defamed him by calling him a liar. 39. The Government observed that cases like the present one, where an individual’s right directly opposes another right of another individual, have