HURBAIN v. BELGIUM JUDGMENT applied in a manner which renders its rights practical and effective, not theoretical and illusory. A failure by the Court to maintain a dynamic and evolutive approach would risk rendering it a bar to reform or improvement (see, mutatis mutandis, Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, § 74, ECHR 2002-VI). 182. On the subject of digital press archives, the Court has previously stressed the importance of their role in enabling the public to learn about contemporary history and allowing the press, by the same means, to carry out its task of helping to shape democratic opinion (see M.L. and W.W. v. Germany, cited above, §§ 101-02). For its part, Recommendation No. R (2000) 13 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on a European policy on access to archives also notes that archives constitute an essential and irreplaceable element of culture, contributing to the survival of human memory (see paragraph 63 above). Even in the context of a defamatory publication the Court has held that “it is not the role of judicial authorities to engage in rewriting history by ordering the removal from the public domain of all traces of publications which have in the past been found, by final judicial decisions, to amount to unjustified attacks on individual reputations” (see Węgrzynowski and Smolczewski, cited above, § 65). 183. The Court also notes the emergence over the past decade of a consensus regarding the importance of press archives. Hence, in the specific context of the processing of personal data at European Union level, the GDPR makes express provision for an exception to the right to the erasure of personal data where the processing of the data is necessary for the exercise of the right of freedom of expression and information (Article 17(3)(a)). Like Directive 95/46/EC which preceded it, the GDPR requires EU member States to provide in their legislation for exemptions or derogations for processing carried out for journalistic purposes if they are necessary to reconcile the right to the protection of personal data with freedom of expression and information (Article 85(2)). According to recital 153 of the GDPR, particular attention is to be paid to the processing of personal data “in news archives and press libraries” (see paragraph 69 above). In the same vein, in the Council of Europe context, the explanatory report to Convention 108+ specifies that the exceptions and restrictions provided for in Article 11 of that Convention should apply “in particular to processing of personal data ... in news archives and press libraries” (see paragraph 62 above). 184. For the press to be able properly to perform its task of creating archives, it must be able to establish and maintain comprehensive records. The Court considers – like the applicant (see paragraph 139 above) – that, since the role of archives is to ensure the continued availability of information that was published lawfully at a certain point in time, they must, as a general rule, remain authentic, reliable and complete. 185. Accordingly, the integrity of digital press archives should be the guiding principle underlying the examination of any request for the removal 63