the intention required for a finding of guilt. Consequently, even if the victim’s assessment of the facts did not prove correct, the “motive for the crime” is not an element of the offence in question and is of no relevance. intentionally. It was not necessary for the author to have intended to put his threats into effect and kill Ms. Gascon to establish that the offence had been committed. 4.6 With regard to the second threat to kill or injure her, which was made, according to the State party, during the telephone call of 15 August 1991, the author said that he did not recollect saying the words attributed to him by Ms. Gascon, that is, that when he left the hospital he was going to kill her. He said, however, that he thought he had said things that she had perhaps misinterpreted as threats. As the Court stressed in its judgement, the author hesitated for a long time before denying that he had made the remarks recounted by Ms. Gascon. 4.9 According to the State party, the author could not be unaware of the connection Ms. Gascon made between the separation she had announced and his threats against her. He had been informed of this during Ms. Gascon’s testimony in the preliminary investigation. Furthermore, Ms. Gascon’s testimony during the trial began with a reminder that she had announced her intention of leaving him at the end of June 1991 and she stated, during cross-examination, that it was on 12 August, when he first threatened her, that the author reproached her for this decision. According to the State party, the author’s counsel endeavoured to establish from the start of the crossexamination that the spouses had had a dispute over the sale of the house, but Ms. Gascon replied that that was not the case since it had been mutually agreed to wait until the author was in better health before proceeding with the sale. The author’s counsel therefore cross-examined Ms. Gascon, in Mr. Dupuy’s words, on the “motive for the crime”. During cross-examination at the trial, Ms. Gascon repeated her statement and the testimony she had given during the preliminary investigation concerning the dispute with the author. Since she was giving her interpretation of the facts and since the versions she gave did not differ, the State party considers that the cross-examination on this point could not possibly reveal any contradiction or incompatibility that might cast doubt on her credibility. Furthermore, during the author’s testimony at the trial, he gave his version of the events that had preceded and given rise to the telephone calls, which he admitted making. According to the State party, the Court had not held against him the fact that he did not accept the breakup since it was not an element of the offence, contrary to the author’s claim. In any case, the Court was able to assess the testimonies of the author and the victim with regard to the events that had preceded and given rise to the telephone calls in question and was in a position to draw the appropriate conclusions. 4.7 The State party maintains that the author’s conviction is based first and foremost on the assessment of his credibility and the statements he made to the Court. The Court found that he had deliberately threatened Ms. Gascon with serious injury or even death even if he had not had any intention of carrying out the threats. According to the State party, since the two elements of the offence - the intention to cause fear by intimidating language and the act of uttering such words - have been established, the reason for making the threats is not relevant. The State party maintains that Ms. Gascon’s statement conveys no new or pertinent information on the elements of the crime and would not have had the impact the author claims. Moreover, according to the State party, the author claims that he would only have used the statement to cross-examine Ms. Gascon on two points, namely the motive for the crime and the month in which the events leading to the accusations took place, so as to undermine Ms. Gascon’s credibility and thus obtain a different verdict. 4.8 The State party maintains that this crossexamination would not have had any effect. The author basically alleges that Ms. Gascon said in her written statement that the motive for the crime was that she wanted to put an end to their relationship, but the author contests this and claims rather that she wanted to obtain ownership of their joint residence. The State party considers that the author appears to be confusing “motive for the crime” he is accused of committing and “motive for filing the complaint”, in other words, Ms. Gascon’s reasons for filing a complaint. According to the State party, even if it had been established that Ms. Gascon’s desire to acquire ownership of the joint residence had been the reason for filing the complaint, this issue is completely separate from the concept of the “motive for the crime” and is not relevant to the author’s being found guilty of deliberately making threats. Furthermore, the State party explains that, contrary to the author’s allegations before the Committee, the “motive” for the offence is not relevant in terms of 4.10 With regard to the inconsistency of the dates in Ms. Gascon’s statement, which has been pointed out by the author, the State party considers that it should be noted that in the first reference in the statement to the events, the word “June” has been struck through and replaced by “August”. The word “June”, however, can be found in two other places in connection with the threats made by the author. According to the State party, the only additional remedy open to the author, if he had had the written statement in his possession during the cross- 18