4 PAVEL IVANOV v. RUSSIA DECISION society (see, among other authorities, Handyside v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, § 49, and Lingens v. Austria, judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103, § 41), it has also laid down the limits to that freedom. The Court has held, in particular, that speech which is incompatible with the values proclaimed and guaranteed by the Convention would be removed from the protection of Article 10 by virtue of Article 17 of the Convention, which provides: “Nothing in [the] Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention.” The examples of such speech examined by the Court have included statements denying the Holocaust, justifying a pro-Nazi policy, alleging the prosecution of Poles by the Jewish minority and the existence of inequality between them, or linking all Muslims with a grave act of terrorism (see Lehideux and Isorni, cited above, §§ 47 and 53; Garaudy v. France (dec.), no. 65831/01, ECHR 2003-IX; W.P. and Others v. Poland (dec.), no.42264/98, 2 September 2004; Norwood v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 23131/03, 16 November 2004; and Witzsch v. Germany (dec.), no. 7485/03, 13 December 2005). In the present case, the applicant authored and published a series of articles portraying the Jews as the source of evil in Russia. He accused an entire ethnic group of plotting a conspiracy against the Russian people and ascribed Fascist ideology to the Jewish leadership. Both in his publications and in his oral submissions at the trial, he consistently denied the Jews the right to national dignity, claiming that they did not form a nation. The Court has no doubt as to the markedly anti-Semitic tenor of the applicant's views and it agrees with the assessment made by the domestic courts that he sought through his publications to incite hatred towards the Jewish people. Such a general and vehement attack on one ethnic group is in contradiction with the Convention's underlying values, notably tolerance, social peace and non-discrimination. Consequently, the Court finds that, by reason of Article 17 of the Convention, the applicant may not benefit from the protection afforded by Article 10 of the Convention. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4. 2. The applicant complained under Article 13 of the Convention that his conviction had been founded on contradictory evidence and that the court had refused to order an expert report which could have shown the veracity of his contention that the Jews did not form a nation. In so far as the applicant's grievance may be understood as a complaint about a violation of the right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court reiterates that while Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily