HURBAIN v. BELGIUM JUDGMENT 70 above), delisting entailed much less serious interference and was therefore preferable to alteration of the archived article, which amounted to censorship and the rewriting of history. 146. The applicant added that the proportionality assessment should also take account of what he regarded as the severe chilling effect of anonymisation of an archived newspaper article. Moreover, any obligation to review the lawfulness of an article at a later stage in response to a request from the data subject entailed a risk that the press would opt not to store information, articles, photographs or reports in the online archives or would omit individualised information likely to be the subject of such a request. The obligation to check the archives on an ongoing basis would also require investment in terms of time and personnel. 147. The applicant further submitted that G.’s rehabilitation did not confer on him a “right to be forgotten”, as neither the relevant domestic provisions (see paragraph 55 above) nor the Court’s case-law (he referred to M.L. and W.W. v. Germany, cited above, § 88) appeared to preclude reference to facts leading to a conviction in respect of which the person concerned had been rehabilitated. 148. Lastly, the applicant argued that the article in question had been published in accordance with the media’s ethical and professional duties and responsibilities, which in his view allowed individualised information such as a person’s full name to be included in a report, especially since the manner in which a subject was dealt with came within the scope of journalistic freedom. Furthermore, he had informed G. in good faith of the existence of measures that were less restrictive of freedom of expression, such as an electronic communication by the newspaper publisher or the delisting of the article by the search engine operators. Even in the case of an article that was defamatory the Court had not considered that it was the role of the judicial authorities to engage in rewriting history by ordering the removal from the public domain of all traces of the article (the applicant referred to Węgrzynowski and Smolczewski v. Poland, no. 33846/07, § 65, 16 July 2013). 2. The Government 149. The Government did not dispute that the order for the applicant to anonymise the impugned article constituted interference with the exercise of his rights under Article 10 of the Convention. They submitted that the interference had pursued a legitimate aim within the meaning of Article 10 § 2, namely the protection of G.’s privacy. As to the lawfulness of the interference, the Government reiterated the submissions they had made in the Chamber proceedings, concluding that the order against the applicant had a basis that was sufficiently accessible, clear, precise and foreseeable. 150. With regard to the necessity of the interference, the Government argued that the present case concerned the balancing of the public’s right to be informed about past events with the help of press archives against the 53