5.  The applicants were born in 1948, 1951, 1962 and 1951 respectively and live in Helsinki, except for Ms Isosaari who lives in Ikkala. 6.  The first and second applicants are editors-in-chief of the nationwide magazine Seura and the third and fourth applicants are an editor-in-chief and a journalist of the nationwide magazine Nykyposti. 7.  On 4 December 1996 A., the National Conciliator (valtakunnansovittelija, riksförlikningsmannen) at the time, and B., his female friend, entered late at night A.’s home where his wife was present. The situation escalated, the police were called and the incident, which subsequently involved also A.’s grown-up children, led to A.’s arrest. Due to the incident, criminal charges were brought against both A. and B. on 18 December 1996. On 16 January 1997 the Helsinki District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) sentenced A. to a four-month conditional prison sentence for resisting arrest and for criminal damage (vahingonteko, skadegörelse), and B. to a fine for assault. On 17 January 1997 the Council of State (valtioneuvosto, statsrådet) dismissed A. from his post as National Conciliator. On 25 June 1998 the Appeal Court (hovioikeus, hovrätten) upheld the judgment with respect to B. As regards A., the case had lapsed as he had died on 14 May 1998. On 15 December 1998 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused B. leave to appeal. 8.  On 31 January and 1 March 1997, respectively, the magazines published an article about A. The article of 31 January 1997 in Seura magazine was based on A.’s interview, and B.’s name and age, together with her picture, were mentioned once in the article. The article was entitled “A.’s sincerity in the balance” and it concerned A.’s feelings about his dismissal and his possible divorce in the aftermath of the incident of 4 December 1996. The article of 1 March 1997 in Nykyposti magazine, which was entitled “Divorced wives’ club”, also dealt inter alia with A.’s possible divorce and his feelings about his dismissal. It was claimed that A.’s divorce proceedings had accelerated due to the incident of 4 December 1996, and B.’s name was mentioned once in that context. This article contained no pictures of B. Prior to these articles, B.’s identity had been revealed at least in a Swedish newspaper on 21 January 1997 and in a Finnish nationwide television broadcast on 23 January 1997. 9.  In the spring of 1997 A. and B. requested that criminal investigations be conducted against journalists who had written about the incident on 4 December 1996 and the circumstances surrounding it. They made such a request with respect to the applicants, claiming that the articles published in Seura and Nykyposti had invaded B.’s privacy. It appears that in regard to all but one of these requests no charges were brought. On 17 September 1998 the public prosecutor decided not to bring charges against the applicants as, according to him, there was no indication of any crime. 10.  On 25 October 1998 B. complained to the Prosecutor General (valtakunnansyyttäjä, högsta åklagaren) about the decisions not to prosecute and asked him to reconsider the cases. On 5 October 1999, after having considered the charges, the Deputy Prosecutor-General requested the public prosecutor to bring charges, inter alia, against the applicants. He reasoned his decision by stating, inter alia, that the facts revealed in the articles fell within the scope of private life and that no derogation could be made in this case as B. was not a public figure. 11.  On 15 November 1999 the public prosecutor, by order of the Deputy Prosecutor-General, brought charges against the applicants under Chapter 27, section 3(a), paragraph 2 of the Penal Code. At the same time charges were also brought against another journalist and editor-in-chief of another magazine to be examined in the same proceedings. This journalist and editor-in-chief have lodged a separate appeal with the Court (see Tuomela and others v. Finland, no. 25711/04, 6 April 2010). 12.  B. concurred with the charges brought by the public prosecutor. On 4 January and 10 November 2000 she pursued a compensation claim against all the applicants, which was joined to the criminal charges. 13.  Following an oral hearing on 8 December 2000, the Espoo District Court rejected all the charges on 15 December 2000, finding that the information concerning B.’s private life in the article could not as such be conducive to causing her particular suffering, except for the information concerning her relationship with A. However, since the incident of 4 December 1996 B. must have understood that she could no longer seek protection on this ground. Thus, the applicants had not been under a duty to assess whether revealing B.’s identity could have caused her suffering. Furthermore, it had not been proved that the applicants had had the intention of invading B.’s privacy. Accordingly, all the compensation claims against the applicants were also rejected. 14.  By letters dated 10 and 14 January 2001, respectively, the public prosecutor and B. appealed to the Helsinki Appeal Court, reiterating the charges and the compensation claims. Moreover, on 17 September 2002 B. requested that the case file be declared secret for at least ten years from the date of the judgment. 15.  In its judgment of 15 May 2003, the Appeal Court first decided to declare all parts of the case file secret for ten years except for the applicable legal provisions and the conclusions. Additionally, B.’s identity was not to be revealed in the public parts of the judgment. The court found that the matter was very sensitive, that it fell within the scope of private life, and that the secrecy accorded did not violate Articles 6 or 10 of the Convention. As to the merits of the case, the court, without holding an oral hearing, quashed the District Court’s judgment and sentenced the applicants to pay twenty day-fines, amounting to 1,180 euros (EUR), EUR 1,100, EUR 1,020 and EUR 120 respectively, for invasion of private life. Moreover, the first and second applicants were ordered jointly to pay B. EUR 5,000 plus interest and the third and fourth applicants EUR 3,000 plus interest for non-pecuniary damage as well as her costs and expenses jointly with the publishing company. The applicants paid in total EUR 22,074.31 in fines and compensation. 16.  The Appeal Court found that the facts mentioned in the articles were of a kind to which the protection of private life typically applied. The Supreme Court had already found in 2002 that the national television broadcast on 23 January 1997, in which B.’s name had been mentioned twice in the context of an interview with A., had invaded her private life. B. did not hold such a position in society that the exception in Chapter 27, section 3(a), paragraph 2, of the Penal Code was applicable. The fact that she was a friend of such a person and that she had been involved in the incident that subsequently led to the dismissal of A. from his post as National Conciliator did not justify revealing her identity. The fact that B.’s identity as A.’s friend had previously been revealed in the media did not justify the subsequent invasion of her private life. The Penal Code provision in question did not require that intent be shown; it was sufficient that the dissemination of information about the private life of a person was capable of causing him or her damage or suffering. The applicants, therefore, had had no right to reveal facts relating to B.’s private life or to publish her picture. 17.  By letter dated 10 July 2003 the applicants applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, claiming, inter alia, that the provision of the Penal Code in question did not define with sufficient clarity which acts fell within its scope and that, as a result, the Penal Code had been applied ex analogia. No intent had been shown, and nor was the Appeal Court judgment adequately reasoned in this respect. Moreover they claimed that, in declaring that the case file was to remain secret, the Appeal Court had not given reasons which would constitute sufficient grounds for the measure. Finally, the Appeal Court had not even tried to indicate on what grounds freedom of expression could be restricted in this case, and therefore the Appeal Court judgment was in contradiction with Article 10 of the Convention. 18.  On 20 January 2004 the Supreme Court refused the applicants leave to appeal.