INCAL JUDGMENT OF 9 JUNE 1998 21 57. In order to demonstrate the existence of a “pressing social need” which would justify the finding that the interference complained of was “proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued”, the representative of the Government asserted at the hearing before the Court that “it was apparent from the wording of the leaflets … that they were intended to foment an insurrection by one ethnic group against the State authorities”. It had therefore been the State’s “duty to forestall any attempt to promote terrorist activities by means of incitement to hatred”, given that “the interest in combating and crushing terrorism takes precedence in a democratic society”. Certain armed groups such as the PKK increased their effectiveness by putting out propaganda cloaked by the freedom of expression. 58. The Court is prepared to take into account the background to the cases submitted to it, particularly problems linked to the prevention of terrorism (see, among other authorities, the Ireland v. the United Kingdom judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, pp. 9 et seq., §§ 11 et seq.; the Aksoy v. Turkey judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI, pp. 2281 and 2284, §§ 70 and 84; the Zana judgment cited above, p. 2549, §§ 59 and 60; and, most recently, the United Communist Party of Turkey and Others judgment cited above, p. 27, § 59). It observes, however, that the circumstances of the present case are not comparable to those found in the Zana case (ibid.). Here the Court does not discern anything which would warrant the conclusion that Mr Incal was in any way responsible for the problems of terrorism in Turkey, and more specifically in İzmir. It should be pointed out in that connection that not even the National Security Court upheld the public prosecutor’s submission that the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713) should be applied to the applicant (see paragraphs 15, 16 and 24 above). 59. In conclusion, Mr Incal’s conviction was disproportionate to the aim pursued, and therefore unnecessary in a democratic society. There has accordingly been a breach of Article 10 of the Convention. 60. The applicant further complained of an infringement of his right to freedom of thought, guaranteed by Article 9 of the Convention. Like the Commission, the Court considers that this complaint is subsumed by the complaint under Article 10 and that it is not necessary to examine it separately. II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 61. Mr Incal further argued that neither his trial in the İzmir National Security Court nor the proceedings before the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation had satisfied the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which provides: