132 Report of the Eminent Jurists Panel on terrorism, counter-terrorism and human rights without requiring intent to incite violence.340 At the Hearings, several participants reflected on the consequences of such speech offences on the already reduced space for civil society engagement in Tunisia. Witnesses expressed particular concern about the legal ambiguities which could deter journalists from writing about terrorism, and/or result in them facing prolonged detention in police custody. Spanish participants at the Brussels Hearing also argued strongly against penal sanctions for “praising” or “justifying” terrorist offences, since they were legally nebulous concepts. Article 578 of the Spanish Penal Code, which sets out the offence, has subsequently been interpreted fairly narrowly by the Spanish Constitutional Court. The Court held that any “praise” must relate to an actual concrete crime, or the persons responsible for the crime. Very importantly, the Court clarified that the publication of a statement, without making any judgment or expressing any opinion in favour of the statement, falls within the legitimate exercise of the freedom of expression. In practice, few cases of “apologia” have come before the Spanish courts and, in 2004, the total number of convictions for “apologia” was estimated at less than 12.341 José Antonio Martín Pallín, an emeritus judge of the Spanish Supreme Court argued that the offence of “apologia” was unnecessary and should be abolished: “I suggest the abolition of the crime of apology. It is not possible to punish the expression of an idea, even the most repugnant we can think of. Otherwise, we take a very dangerous route leading us to situations like the one that Galileo’s story recalls and the suppression of political dissent. We must contest the apology with the strength and the serenity of the democratic ethic.” 342 Helpful guidance on the matter is given in the Joint Declaration by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the OSCE Representative on the Freedom of the Media and the OAS Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, International Mechanisms for Promoting Freedom of Expression which stated that: “while it may be legitimate to ban incitement to terrorism or acts of terrorism, States should not employ vague terms such as “glorifying” or “promoting” terrorism when restricting expression. Incitement should be understood as a direct call to engage in terrorism, with the intention that this should promote terrorism, and in a context in which the call is directly causally responsible for increasing the actual likelihood of a terrorist act occurring.” 343 340 Article 6 of the 2003 Anti-terrorism law of Tunisia. 341 Council of Europe, Committee of Experts on Terrorism (CODEXTER), Apologie du Terrorisme and Incitement to Terrorism, Analytical report, CODEXTER (2004) 04 rev, 24 June 2004, p. 25. 342 Oral testimony by José Antonio Martín Pallín, EJP European Union Hearing (original in Spanish, unofficial translation). 343 The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media and the OAS Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, “Joint Declaration on International Mechanisms for Promoting Freedom of Expression” adopted on 21 December 2005.