PAVEL IVANOV v. RUSSIA DECISION 3 On 27 April 2004 the Novgorod Regional Court upheld the conviction. It struck down the prohibition on journalistic activity because that particular form of penalty had been introduced into the Criminal Code after the imputed events, and instead sentenced the applicant to a fine of 10,000 Russian roubles (approximately 300 euros). COMPLAINTS 1. The applicant complained, in general terms, that his conviction for incitement to racial hatred had not been justified. 2. The applicant complained under Article 13 of the Convention that the domestic courts had founded his conviction on contradictory findings in the expert reports and had refused his request for a report to determine whether the Jews formed a nation. 3. The applicant complained under Article 14 of the Convention that he was discriminated against because of his religious beliefs. THE LAW 1. The Court considers that by complaining about his conviction for incitement to racial hatred in connection with his publications, the applicant alleged, in essence, a violation of his right to freedom of expression guaranteed under 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... 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 Court notes at the outset that it is not for it to determine what evidence was required under Russian law to demonstrate the existence of the constituent elements of the offence of inciting to racial hatred. It is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law. The Court's task is merely to review under Article 10 the decisions they delivered pursuant to their power of appreciation (see, among other authorities, Lehideux and Isorni v. France, judgment of 23 September 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII, § 50). The Court further reiterates that, although its case-law has enshrined the overriding and essential nature of the freedom of expression in a democratic