HURBAIN v. BELGIUM JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINIONS That being said, it is not the continued online availability of the article that is under discussion here, but solely the continued mention of G.’s first name and surname in the publicly accessible digital archive. Consequently, the issue is not whether the article, as such, is of contemporary or historical interest, but rather whether the mention of G.’s identity is of such interest. In that regard I have difficulty discerning how his identity is relevant to the information contained in the article, especially twenty years after the events. 19. In this connection we know that in cases involving a classic conflict between the rights guaranteed by Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention, the Court usually gives precedence to the Article 8 rights where the publication in question does not contribute to a debate of public interest and where the persons concerned are not well known (see, in particular, Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland [GC], no. 931/13, 27 June 2017, and, conversely, Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés, cited above). Of course, this case-law does not concern digital press archives, but the assessment criteria are also of relevance in the present case and, indeed, are among the factors to be taken into consideration outlined in the judgment (see paragraph 205). 20. As to the harm alleged by the parties, G. claimed to have suffered, in his capacity as a doctor, as a result of the accessibility of the press archive mentioning his name (to which access was completely free at the time). The Liège Court of Appeal sought to describe the harm suffered by G. on account of the continued online availability of the article twenty years after the events, and weighed this up against the harm alleged by the applicant. Referring to the various letters sent to the applicant by G. giving reasons for his request, it noted that the request for anonymisation had been “based on valid grounds relating to [G.]’s professional and family circumstances”. G. had been rehabilitated in 2006, with the result that his conviction was erased from the criminal records. However, the fact that the article was kept online and disclosed his identity created a “virtual criminal record” which undermined his efforts to reintegrate. To my mind, it has not been demonstrated before the Court that the damage sustained by the applicant as a result of the anonymisation of the digital version of the article in the online archives was greater than the damage alleged by G. if he were to continue to be identified. In truth, it is not clear to me how replacing G.’s first name and surname with the letter X could have caused serious harm to the applicant. 21. It is true that, after the Liège Court of Appeal judgment, the Court found in its judgment of 28 June 2018 in M.L. and W.W. v. Germany (cited above) that the German courts’ refusal of the requests to prohibit the publication of personal data featuring on a radio station website and in a weekly magazine and a daily newspaper did not amount to a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. However, a number of important factors distinguish that case from the present one. Firstly, the judicial facts 90