A rapper’s coviction for slanderous posts against the king of Spain and for glorifying terrorism did not violate freedom of expression!
JUDGMENT
Rivadulla Duró v. Spain 09.11.2023 (app. no. 27925/21)
SUMMARY
Condemnation of rapper for defamatory and critical posts against the honorary king of Spain on twitter. These posts praised and supported terrorist acts and aimed to remove the royal family from the monarchy in Spain.
The applicant was sentenced to two years in prison and a fine of 13,500 euros for the offenses of public praise and support for terrorism. He was also convicted of insulting and defaming the Crown and misusing the image of the King and insulting and defaming state institutions, offenses for which he was fined €10,800 and €13,500 respectively.
The ECtHR found that the applicant’s posts were capable of causing adverse consequences as they were available to the general public and found that the sentence imposed on him was reasonable and based on the principle of proportionality.
The Court rejected all the applicant’s complaints, finding them to be manifestly unfounded, as the national courts had examined his case in the light of ECtHR jurisprudence and weighed the various conflicting interests before sentencing him.
PROVISIONS
Article 10
Article 13
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Pablo Rivadulla Duró, also known by his stage name “Pablo Hasél”, is a Spanish
national who was born in 1988 and lives in Madrid. He is a rapper.
In the period from 2014-16, Mr Rivadulla Duró published a series of posts on a social-media website
(Twitter) showing support for and admiration of GRAPO (“Antifascist Resistance Groups October
First”), a proscribed organisation. The applicant wrote multiple posts glorifying terrorist actions.
He published another series of tweets about King Emeritus Juan Carlos I of Spain, referring to him as,
among other things, a “Bourbon mafioso”, and a “thief”, accusing the Royal family of atrocities, and
calling for them to be removed from monarchy in Spain.
In another set of tweets, Mr Rivadulla Duró was critical of the police and security forces, whom he
accused of brutality and murder.
Separately, in 2016 the applicant posted a video with the title “Pablo Hasel … Juan Carlos el Bobón”
(Bobón meaning “idiot” but sounding close to “Borbón”, the Spanish for the royal house of Bourbon)
in which the King Emeritus was accused of squandering public money, among other things. Mr
Rivalla Duró also released a rap song called “Juan Carlos el Bobón”.
In March 2018, the Audiencia Nacional convicted Mr Rivadulla Duró of public praise or justification
of terrorism, sentencing him to two years’ imprisonment and a fine of 13,500 euros (EUR), finding
that he had called for violent action against King Emeritus Juan Carlos and senior parliamentarians
and government officials, and had praised members of known terrorist organisations. He was also
convicted of insult and slander against the Crown and misuse of the King’s image and of insult and
slander against State institutions, for which he received fines of EUR 10,800 and EUR 13,500
respectively.
On appeal, the Audencia Nacional reduced the sentence for justification of terrorism to nine
months’ imprisonment and a fine of EUR 5,040.
An appeal of points of law by Mr Rivadulla Duró was dismissed by the Supreme Court in May 2020,
while an amparo appeal he lodged was found inadmissible by the Audiencia Nacional in November
2020.
Mr Rivadulla Duró was imprisoned in 2021 as his conviction had broken the terms of his previous
suspended sentence for another offence.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT…
Articles 9 and 10
The Court reiterated that freedom of expression was one of the foundations of a democratic society.
As regards the conviction for public praise or justification of terrorism, the Court declared that part
of the application inadmissible in line with its clear case law (it referred to Jorge López v. Spain, no.
54140/21). The Spanish courts had found that Mr Rivadulla Duró’s comments and songs had been
incitement to support terrorism, a finding which the European Court agreed with. These statements
had been available to a wide audience and had had the capacity to lead to harmful consequences.
The Spanish courts’ assessment had been reasonable and proportionate. They had examined Mr
Rivadulla Duró’s case in the light of the European Court’s relevant case-law, and the reason for their
judgments – combating public praise or justification of terrorism – appear to have been “relevant”
and “sufficient” to justify the interference with Mr Rivadulla Duró’s rights. Concerning the custodial
sentence handed down, the Court noted that had it not been for Mr Rivadulla Duró’s prior
conviction, he would not have served time for the offence in question.
Concerning the conviction for slander against the Head of State and the State institutions, the
Court noted that Mr Rivadulla Duró had made the relevant statements in his capacity as an artist,
including repeated accusations of torture, murder, Nazism, and so forth. The Court considered that
the Audiencia Nacional had carefully considered the case in the light of the Court’s case-law and had
weighed up the various interests involved, before finding him guilty. That conviction could not be
considered disproportionate.
As a result of the above findings, the Court rejected the complaints under these Articles as
manifestly ill-founded.
Articles 13 and 18
The Court noted that the conditions for admitting an amparo appeal were stricter than other
appeals, and that it was acceptable for the national courts to refer to the relevant legislative
provisions only if no fundamental question had been raised, as was the case here. As no arguable breach of Mr Rivadulla Duró’s rights under Article 13 had been established, he could not rely on Article 18.
The Court therefore held that the complaints under these Articles were manifestly ill-founded and
rejected them.
