BULGAKOV v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINION The judgment indeed criticises Russian law for “[not requiring] any form of involvement of the website owner, such as the applicant, in blocking proceedings conducted under section 10(6) of the Information Act” (see paragraph 35 of the judgment). 5. In sum, the interference violated the Convention for two reasons: firstly, the blocking order was adopted in proceedings which did not allow the applicant to defend his rights; secondly, the order exceeded the limits of what was a permissible interference under domestic law. In order to properly execute the present judgment, it will be for the legislature to amend the law so that website owners have an opportunity to properly defend their rights and to avoid the blocking of their websites (or a page thereof) by removing any illegal content. It will also be for the prosecutors and the courts to pay due attention to the formula to be used for the blocking of a webpage. If, as the applicant contends, there is a lack of technical expertise on the part of the judges (see paragraph 33 of the judgment), then there is a need for proper training of judges dealing with this kind of case. 16