October 2003 cases of Oberschlick v. Austria (judgment of 22 May 1991, Series A, No. 204, para. 57) and Autronic AG v. Switzerland (judgment of 22 May 1990, Series A, No. 178, para. 47) has held that Article 10 protects not only the substance of the ideas and information expressed, but also the form in which they are conveyed. Within the CSCE/OSCE, the 1990 Document of the Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension (Copenhagen Document, para. 9.1) and the 1991 Document of the Cracow Symposium on the Cultural Heritage of the CSCE participating States (Cracow Document, para. 6.1) reiterate the right to freedom of expression. According to the Copenhagen Document, persons belonging to national minorities have the right to use their mother tongue in private and in public (para. 32.1) as well as the right to disseminate, have access to, and exchange information in their mother tongue (para. 32.5). In Handyside v. United Kingdom (judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A, No. 24, para. 49), the European Court of Human Rights has provided the following further interpretation of Article 10 of the ECHR: “Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of [a democratic] society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man. Subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10 (art. 10-2), it is applicable 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 the State or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no ‘democratic society’. This means, amongst other things, that every ‘formality’, ‘condition’, ‘restriction’ or ‘penalty’ imposed in this sphere must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued”. 2) Under Article 15(a) of the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) States parties recognize the right of everyone to take part in cultural life. Article 27 of the ICCPR protects the right of persons belonging to, inter alia, linguistic minorities to enjoy their own culture or to use their own language in community with other members of the group. The safeguarding and promotion of pluralism in the broadcast media, reflecting cultural and linguistic diversity, is a necessary component of the freedom of expression. According to Article 2 of the 2001 UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, policies ensuring cultural pluralism give expression to the reality of cultural diversity. In Article 6, the Declaration notes that cultural diversity is guaranteed by, inter alia, the freedom of expression, media pluralism and multilingualism. In the Case of Informationsverein Lentia and Others v. Austria (judgment of 24 November 1993, Series A, No. 276), the European Court of Human Rights has emphasised the importance of pluralism 14