INCAL JUDGMENT OF 9 JUNE 1998 15 FINAL SUBMISSIONS TO THE COURT 36. In their memorial, and later at the hearing, the Government asked the Court to hold that the proceedings complained of had not infringed the rights secured to the applicant by Articles 6, 10 and 14 of the Convention. 37. The applicant asked the Court to hold that Article 6 § 1, Article 9 and Article 10 of the Convention had been breached and to award him just satisfaction under Article 50. AS TO THE LAW I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION 38. Mr Incal submitted that his criminal conviction on account of his contribution to preparation of the leaflet in issue had infringed his right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention, which provides: “1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.” The Commission accepted this argument, which the Government contested. A. Existence of an interference 39. The participants in the proceedings agreed that the applicant’s conviction amounted to an interference with the exercise of his right to freedom of expression. That is also the Court’s opinion.