A/HRC/9/25 page 14 that provocative portrayals of objects of religious veneration “can be regarded as malicious violation of the spirit of tolerance, which must also be a feature of democratic society”. It pointed out that in the context of religious opinions and beliefs, those who exercise the right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the Convention have an obligation to “avoid as far as possible expressions that are gratuitously offensive to others” (paras. 47 and 49). 58. In Wingrove v. United Kingdom (1996), the European Court noted that the law on blasphemy did not treat on an equal footing the different religions practised in the United Kingdom (it protects only the Christian religion and, more specifically, the established Church of England), but stated that this was not the issue before the Court to rule on. The Court upheld the refusal to grant a certificate for the distribution of a film because it had a legitimate aim to protect “the rights of others”, and more specifically, to protect against seriously offensive attacks on matters regarded as sacred by Christians. 59. In İ.A. v. Turkey (2005), the European Court underlined that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness are hallmarks of a democratic society, and noted that freedom of expression applies not only to “information” or “ideas” that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb. It also noted, however, that with respect to religious belief there may be a legitimate duty to avoid expressions that are gratuitously offensive to others and profane, hence it may be considered necessary to punish improper attacks on objects of religious veneration. 60. The European Court noted that the judgements of the national organs were intended to provide protection against offensive attacks on matters regarded as sacred by Muslims and that the measure may reasonably be held to have met a “pressing social need”. The Court ruled that there had been no violation of article 10 of the Convention. 61. In Aydın Tatlav v. Turkey (2006), on the other hand, the European Court found a violation of article 10 by the State. It held that a criminal conviction involving the risk of a custodial sentence could have the effect of discouraging authors and editors from publishing opinions about religion that were not conformist and could therefore impede pluralism, which was indispensable for the healthy development of a democratic society. 62. In Giniewski v. France (2006), the European Court stated that although the applicant’s article criticized a papal encyclical and hence the Pope’s position, the analysis it contained could not be extended to Christianity as a whole. The Court again found that restrictions to freedom were not warranted under article 10 of the European Convention because the publication in question was not “gratuitously offensive” or insulting, did not incite disrespect or hatred, did not cast doubt in any way on clearly established historical facts, and did not meet the “pressing social need” imperative. 63. The European Court maintained the same position in Klein v. Slovakia (2007) and found a violation of article 10 of the European Convention because the sanction was not necessary, did not meet pressing social need and was not proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. 64. In summary, according to the European Court, those who choose to exercise the freedom to manifest their religion must tolerate and accept the denial by others of their religious beliefs and even the propagation by others of doctrines hostile to their faith