the incitement of violence.123 In this regard, the Court has found the imposition of criminal penalties (even when they have not been enforced) as a consequence of clearly offensive or disturbing speech that may affect the personal rights of public servants to be disproportionate. This opinion is based not on the assertion that those rights should not be protected, but rather on the need to create appropriate and proportionate remedies that do not inhibit the robustness of debate surrounding issues of major public relevance and that cannot be used by States to silence criticism or dissent. 87. In the case of Castells v. Spain, the European Court ruled that the Spanish State violated Article 10 by imposing a prison sentence of one year and one day against a senator who accused the national government of being complicit in a number of murders in the Basque Country.124 Similarly, in the case of Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan, the European Court found that the sentencing of a journalist to two years and six months in prison for criminal defamation because he questioned the official version of a massacre committed by the armed forces in Armenia was a violation of Article 10.125 In the case of Otegi Mondragon v. Spain, the European Court found a violation of Article 10 based on the conviction for causing “serious insult to the King” of the spokesperson for a parliamentary group that attributed ultimate responsibility to the King of Spain for acts of torture and violence committed by the Spanish Army.126 In the Case of Cumpănă and Mazăre v. Romania the European Court found the State responsible for the violation of Article 10 of the Convention after the journalists who published an article in a local newspaper under the headline “Former Deputy Mayor [D.M.] and serving judge [R.M.] responsible for series of offences in Vinalex scam” were convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment and disqualification from the exercise of their political rights. 127 88. Indeed, over the past decade, the European Court has developed a general rule about the exceptional nature of criminal penalties for speech about matters of public interest. The European Court has thus stated that, “the imposition of a prison sentence for a press offence will be compatible with journalists’ freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention only in exceptional circumstances, notably where other fundamental rights have been seriously impaired, as, for example, in the case of hate speech or incitement to violence.”128 This jurisprudential rule was established by the Court in 2004 in the case of Cumpănă and Mazăre v. Romania, and later reiterated in the cases of Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan and Otegi Mondragon v. Spain, among others. With respect to the latter case, the Court examined the existence of a potential violation of the right to freedom of expression based on a politician’s criminal conviction for the offense of causing insult to the King. The Court found that the statements that led to the conviction—asserting that the King was the head of an army of torturers who had imposed his political regime through terror— were permitted, in the context of a public debate of general interest, even if they were bothersome, disturbing, or unfair. Therefore, the Court found that although the establishment of the penalties is in principle a prerogative of the national courts, the imposition of a prison sentence is incompatible with freedom of expression when used to punish statements made against public figures in the context of political debate, except in extreme cases, such as hate speech or the incitement of violence.129 The European Court has 123 European Court of Human Rights, Cumpănă and Mazăre v. Romania, Application No. 33348/96. 17 December 2004, para. 115; Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan. Application No. 40984/07. 22 April 2010, para. 103; Otegi Mondragon v. Spain. European Court of Human Rights. Application No. 2034/07. 15 March 2011, para. 59. 124 European Court of Human Rights, Castells v. Spain. Application No. 11798/85. 23 April 1992. 125 European Court of Human Rights, Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan. Application No. 40984/07. 22 April 2010. 126 European Court of Human Rights, Otegi Mondragon v. Spain. European Court of Human Rights. Application No. 2034/07. 15 March 2011. 127 European Court of Human Rights, Cumpănă and Mazăre v. Romania, Application No. 33348/96. 17 December 2004, para. 116 128 European Court of Human Rights, Cumpănă and Mazăre v. Romania, Application No. 33348/96. 17 December 2004, para. 115; Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan. Application No. 40984/07. 22 April 2010, para. 103; Otegi Mondragon v. Spain. European Court of Human Rights. Application No. 2034/07. 15 March 2011, para. 59. 129 European Court of Human Rights. Otegi Mondragon v. Spain. Application No. 2034/07. Strasbourg. 15 March 2011. Final 15/09/2011. Paras. 50 & 59. “The Court has previously held that, although sentencing is in principle a matter for the national courts, the imposition of a prison sentence for an offence in the area of political speech will be compatible with freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention only in exceptional circumstances, notably where other fundamental rights have been seriously impaired, [continues …]