16 SAVVA TERENTYEV v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT (a) “Prescribed by law” 53. In the present case, it was not in dispute that the applicant’s conviction had a basis in national law – Article 282 § 1 of the Russian Criminal Code – and that the relevant provision was accessible. Rather, the applicant called into doubt the foreseeability of that provision as applied by the domestic courts, arguing that his conviction under the above-mentioned provision for his comment on the Internet had gone beyond what could reasonably have been expected (see paragraphs 42 above). 54. The Court reiterates its settled case-law, according to which the expression “prescribed by law” requires that the impugned measure should have a basis in domestic law. It also refers to the quality of the law in question, which should be accessible to the persons concerned and foreseeable as to its effects, that is formulated with sufficient precision to enable the persons concerned – if need be, with appropriate advice – to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail and to regulate their conduct (see, among many other authorities, Öztürk v. Turkey [GC], no. 22479/93, § 54, ECHR 1999-VI; Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 41, ECHR 2007-IV; and Dilipak v. Turkey, no. 29680/05, § 55, 15 September 2015). Those consequences need not be foreseeable with absolute certainty, as experience shows that to be unattainable (see, as a recent authority, Perinçek v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27510/08, § 131, ECHR 2015 (extracts)). 55. The Court has consistently recognised that laws must be of general application with the result that their wording is not always precise. It is true that the need to avoid excessive rigidity and to keep pace with changing circumstances means that many laws are inevitably couched in terms which, to a greater or lesser extent, are vague. The interpretation and application of such enactments depend on practice (see, for instance, Gorzelik and Others v. Poland [GC], no. 44158/98, § 64, ECHR 2004-I, and Altuğ Taner Akçam v. Turkey, no. 27520/07, § 87, 25 October 2011). The scope of the notion of foreseeability depends to a considerable degree on the content of the instrument in question, the field it is designed to cover and the number and status of those to whom it is addressed (see, for instance, Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July, cited above, § 41). It may be assumed therefore that, even if generally formulated, the provision in question may be regarded as compatible with the “quality of law” requirement, if interpreted and applied by the domestic courts in a rigorous and consistent manner. The Court is furthermore mindful that its task is not to review domestic law in the abstract but to determine whether the way in which it was applied to the applicant gave rise to a breach of the Convention (see Perinçek, cited above, § 136). 56. In the present case, the key issue is whether by deciding to publish the impugned comment the applicant knew or ought to have known – if