RIVADULLA DURÓ v. SPAIN DECISION Article 491 “1. Slander and libel against any of the persons mentioned in the previous Article, and outside the cases provided for therein, shall be punishable by a fine [under the dayfine system] of between four and twenty months. 2. A fine of between six and twenty-four months shall be imposed on anyone who uses the image of the King or the Queen or of any of their antecedents or descendants, or of the Queen Consort or the Queen’s consort, or of the Regent or of any member of the Regency, or of the Prince or Princess of Asturias, in any way that may damage the prestige of the Crown.” Article 504 § 2 “Anyone who seriously insults or threatens the armed forces, troops or security corps and forces shall be liable to a fine [under the day-fine system] of between twelve and eighteen months. The perpetrator of the insults provided for in the previous paragraph shall be exempt from punishment if the circumstances described in Article 210 of this Code are met.” Article 578 “1. Public praise or justification of [terrorist] criminal offences or of those who have participated in the perpetration thereof ... shall be punished with a penalty of between one and three years’ imprisonment and a fine ... The judge may also order ... any or some of the [additional] prohibitions ... 2. The penalties provided for in the previous paragraph shall be imposed within the upper half [of the sentencing range] if the acts have been carried out through the dissemination of services or content accessible to the public through the media or the Internet ...” D. Complaints 17. The applicant complained under Article 10 of the Convention that his freedom of expression had been violated, because the interference with his exercise of that right had not been necessary. The applicant also relied on Article 9 by linking his freedom of expression to his ideological freedom, arguing that his statements were a manifestation of his ideology. Lastly, he complained that Article 18 had been violated, as he considered that the purpose of his punishment had been to silence his message. 18. The applicant also relied on Article 13 of the Convention, arguing that his right to an effective remedy had not been respected because the Constitutional Court, on the basis of excessively formal admissibility criteria, had refused to give a judgment on the merits of his case. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 19. The Court observes that the Constitutional Court declared the amparo appeal by the applicant inadmissible for lack of justification of its 9