GLUKHIN v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT v. Germany, no. 35623/05, §§ 51-53, ECHR 2010 (extracts), and Ben Faiza v. France, no. 31446/12, §§ 53-55, 8 February 2018); the registration of a person’s name in a police database which automatically collected and processed information about that person’s movements, by train or air (see Shimovolos v. Russia, no. 30194/09, § 66, 21 June 2011); and video surveillance of university amphitheatres at a public university (see Antović and Mirković v. Montenegro, no. 70838/13, §§ 40-45 and 55, 28 November 2017). (ii) Application to the present case 68. In the present case, during routine monitoring of the Internet the police discovered photographs and a video of the applicant holding a solo demonstration published on a public Telegram channel. They made screenshots of the Telegram channel, stored them and allegedly applied facial recognition technology to them to identify the applicant. Having identified the location on the video as one of the stations of the Moscow underground, the police also collected video-recordings from CCTV surveillance cameras installed at that station as well as at two other stations through which the applicant had transited. They made screenshots of those video-recordings and stored them. They also allegedly used the live facial recognition CCTV cameras installed in the Moscow underground to locate and arrest the applicant several days later with the aim of charging him with an administrative offence. The screenshots of the Telegram channel and of the video-recordings from the CCTV surveillance cameras were subsequently used in evidence in the administrative-offence proceedings against the applicant (see paragraphs 7-15 above). 69. The Government have not contested that the factual circumstances as described above amounted to an “interference” with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life under Article 8 of the Convention. In particular, despite the Court’s specific question on the issue, they did not comment on the applicant’s allegations that the facial recognition technology had been used, first, to identify him from the photographs and the video published on Telegram and, secondly, to locate and arrest him while he was travelling on the Moscow underground. The Court is mindful of the difficulty the applicant faced in proving his allegations. Indeed, the domestic legislation available to the Court does not require the police to make a record of their use of facial recognition technology or to give the person concerned access to any such record, either automatically or upon request (see paragraph 40 above, describing the practice of using facial recognition technology without making any official record). 70. As regards the applicant’s identification from the photographs and the video published on Telegram, the Court notes that although the photographs and the video in question did not contain any information permitting the identification of the applicant, he was identified within less than two days. 23