HURBAIN v. BELGIUM JUDGMENT create a kind of “virtual criminal record” for G., who had served his sentence and been rehabilitated. The Court of Appeal observed that a simple search based on G.’s first name and surname in the search engine of the website of Le Soir or on Google immediately brought up the article. In the Court of Appeal’s view, this was undoubtedly a source of harm to G., at least of a psychological nature. Such a situation made knowledge of his previous conviction readily accessible to a wide audience which – since G. was a doctor – inevitably included patients, colleagues and acquaintances, and was thus liable to stigmatise him, seriously damage his reputation and prevent him from reintegrating into society normally (see paragraphs 29 and 31 above). 235. In this regard the Court sees no strong reason to call into question the duly reasoned decision of the Liège Court of Appeal. (vi) The degree of accessibility of the information in the digital archives 236. As regards the accessibility of published material, the Court would reiterate that Internet sites are an information and communication tool particularly distinct from the print media, especially as regards the capacity to store and transmit information, and that the risk of harm posed by content and communications on the Internet to the exercise and enjoyment of human rights and freedoms, particularly the right to respect for private life, is certainly higher than that posed by printed publications (see Delfi AS v. Estonia [GC], no. 64569/09, § 133, ECHR 2015; Editorial Board of Pravoye Delo and Shtekel v. Ukraine, no. 33014/05, § 63, ECHR 2011 (extracts); and Cicad v. Switzerland, no. 17676/09, § 59, 7 June 2016), especially on account of the important role played by search engines. 237. However, it should be borne in mind that, generally speaking, consulting archives requires an active search which involves entering keywords on a dedicated web page containing the newspaper’s archives. Thus, in the absence of such a search, an article contained in the digital archives is not, as such, likely to attract the attention of Internet users who are not looking for precise information concerning a particular person (see M.L. and W.W. v. Germany, cited above, § 113). 238. In weighing up the interests at stake, it is also important to ascertain the degree of accessibility of the archived article, that is, whether it is available without restrictions and free of charge or access is confined to subscribers or otherwise restricted. 239. In the present case the domestic courts observed that when they were placed online in 2008, the archives of the newspaper Le Soir had been available free of charge. Moreover, it is not in dispute that when G. made his request, and throughout the domestic proceedings, the archives continued to be accessible without restrictions and free of charge (compare M.L. and W.W. v. Germany, cited above, § 113, where access to certain articles was behind a paywall or was confined to subscribers). In view of this high degree of accessibility the Court considers, like the Liège Court of Appeal, that the 79