RIVADULLA DURÓ v. SPAIN DECISION 54. As the Court has previously stated, the conditions of admissibility of an amparo appeal may be stricter than for an ordinary appeal (see Arribas Antón, cited above, § 42, and Zubac v. Croatia [GC], no. 40160/12, § 82, 5 April 2018). Furthermore, for national superior courts it is sufficient, when declining to accept a complaint for adjudication, simply to refer to the legal provisions governing the relevant procedure if the questions raised by the complaint are not of fundamental importance or if the complaint has no prospects of success (see Annen v. Germany, no. 3690/10, § 77, 26 November 2015). 55. Lastly, the applicant alleged a breach of Article 18 of the Convention, arguing that he had been sentenced in order to silence him. 56. The Court has stated that where no arguable issue, or no interference with the applicant’s rights, under the relevant substantive provision has been established, Article 18 cannot be relied upon (see Rustavi 2 Broadcasting Company Ltd and Others v. Georgia, no. 16812/17, §§ 316-17, 18 July 2019). 57. In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that the complaints under Articles 13 and 18 of the Convention are manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 9 November 2023. Martina Keller Deputy Registrar Mārtiņš Mits President 17