ORLOVSKAYA ISKRA v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT - SEPARATE OPINION 45 legitimate aim, a motivated opinion (negative or positive) should be expressed. If the interference with the freedom of expression had been exercised in relation to a fair and open debate as described above, I would vote for a violation of Article 10 without any hesitation, and I would agree, in concrete circumstances, that the Russian law lacks the legal certainty. However, the press should not unduly influence the voters’ decision on who is the more reliable candidate. It is for the public, not for the journalist, to decide who deserves to be a member of parliament or even a member of a political party (as in the present case). The worst-case scenario is when the journalist expresses an unsubstantiated value-judgment which diminishes the dignity of the candidate, as happened in the present case. Abuse of a personal nature, in my view, is always unacceptable as it distorts the fairness of the election process and unduly influences the choice between candidates. As a result of such press actions, respect for candidates as members of society is liable to be replaced by hatred, and systemic analysis by hate speech. Finally, it impedes social progress. The Court’s case-law (cited in the judgment) includes very good examples of a fair and open debate on a subject of public interest (humanism) which, to my regret, did not attract great interest. In the case of Animal Defenders International, the applicant organisation raised the issue of ill-treatment of animals. The Bowman case concerned the preferences of candidates in relation to the problem of abortion. In both cases the public had received the impartial information required for making a free choice during the elections. Surprisingly, the Court came to opposite conclusions in the two cases, and the judges of the Court were divided in their opinions. Therefore, the case-law of the Court is still not established. Obviously, it is difficult to strike a balance between freedom of expression and the public function of the press. In my view, the financing element should be disregarded if the publication contains truthful, fair and objective information in the public interest, based, for example, on universal human values. Unfortunately, in Animal Defenders International the Court came to the opposite conclusion. The present case is different: the impugned articles attacked the candidate’s personality, his good name, his reputation and his dignity. They did not concern the political party’s programme or the candidate’s personal views on any subject of public interest. Indeed, the press has the right to criticize power, but even public officials are human beings and, in the name of fundamental rights and freedoms, their dignity should be equally protected. I must say that personal attacks are very painful, and the dignity of any person should be respected in a democratic society. Therefore, the proposal made in the judgment that the candidate could defend his good name in court is not sufficient to regulate the freedom of the press during election periods. As usually happens with the abuse of freedom of the press,