EINARSSON v. ICELAND JUDGMENT 13 makes a difference, even though this alone is not decisive for the conclusion, that [X] did not maintain that the [applicant] had thus committed a criminal offence against someone else, named or unnamed” (see paragraph 16 above). 48. The Court reiterates that the classification of a statement as a fact or as a value judgment is a matter which in the first place falls within the margin of appreciation of the national authorities, in particular the domestic courts. The Court may, however, consider it necessary to make its own assessment of the impugned statements (see, for example, Brosa v. Germany, no. 5709/09, 17 April 2014, §§ 43-50).” 49. The Court notes at the outset that the Supreme Court in fact accepted that by using the term “rapist” about a named person, that person was being accused of committing rape. However, the Supreme Court considered that the statement in question was to be classified as a value judgment when viewed in “context” (see paragraph 16 above). The question before the Court is therefore whether, viewed as a whole and in context, as is required by the case-law of the Court (see, for example, Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 62, ECHR 1999-IV), the findings of the Supreme Court were within its margin of factual appreciation that must be afforded to the national courts as to the classification of the statement (see Arnarson v Iceland, no. 58781/13, § 45, 13 June 2017). 50. At the outset, the Court notes that the term “rapist” is objective and factual in nature. It directly refers to a person who has committed the act of rape, which is criminalised under the Icelandic Penal Code (see paragraph 18 above). The veracity of an allegation of rape can therefore be proven. It follows that, viewed on its face, the statement “Fuck you rapist bastard” included a statement of fact as it clearly assigns the status of “rapist” to the person who is the subject of the statement. Although the Court does not exclude the possibility that an objective statement of fact, such as the one impugned in the present case, can, contextually, be classified as a value judgment the contextual elements justifying such a conclusion must be convincing in the light of the objective and factual nature of the term “rapist” taken at face value. (see, a contrario, for example, Karman v Russia, no. 29372/02, 14 December 2006, § 41, and Brosa, cited above, §§ 43-50).” 51. In this regard, the Court considers it crucial that when describing the context of the statement in question, the Supreme Court relied primarily on the applicant’s participation in a “ruthless debate” which he had “instigated”. The Supreme Court failed to take adequate account of the important chronological link between the publication of the statement on 22 November 2012 and the discontinuance of the criminal cases of alleged rape against the applicant, the second only a week before, on 15 November 2012, both cases being the subject matter of the magazine interview on 22 November 2012 which prompted X to publish his statement. In other