don’t know why they told it to me. I could not know at the outset what the purpose of their visit was. They may have said something to me at the time with a view to undermining my religious beliefs... [However,] the discussion did not influence my beliefs". Mrs Kyriakaki’s husband, who was the cantor at a local Orthodox church, informed the police and Mr. Kokkinakis was convicted for proselytism. Mr. Kokkinakis appealed to the ECtHR under Articles 7, 9, 10 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court's Commission unanimously held that there had been a violation of Kokkinakis' rights under Article 9. Court's judgment The court held that the measure complained of was prescribed by law and was in pursuit of a legitimate aim under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, namely the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. However, it found a violation of Article 9 (by six votes to three), reasoning that the interference with Kokkinakis' freedom of religion was not necessary in a democratic society since: a "distinction has to be made between bearing Christian witness and improper proselytism. The former corresponds to true evangelism, which a report drawn up in 1956 under the auspices of the World Council of Churches describes as an essential mission and a responsibility of every Christian and every Church. The latter represents a corruption or deformation of it. It may, according to the same report, take the form of activities offering material or social advantages with a view to gaining new members for a Church or exerting improper pressure on people in distress or in need; it may even entail the use of violence or brainwashing; more generally, it is not compatible with respect for the freedom of thought, conscience and religion of others. Scrutiny of section 4 of Law no. 1363/1938 shows that the relevant criteria adopted by the Greek legislature are reconcilable with the foregoing if and in so far as they are designed only to punish improper proselytism, which the Court does not have to define in the abstract in the present case. The Court notes, however, that in their reasoning the Greek courts established the applicant’s liability by merely reproducing the wording of section 4 and did not sufficiently specify in what way the accused had attempted to convince his neighbour by improper means. None of the