HURBAIN v. BELGIUM JUDGMENT published initially in a lawful manner, the Court considers that such an obligation may in principle fall within the “duties and responsibilities” of the press and the limits which may be imposed on it (see paragraph 177 above). Nevertheless, in the circumstances of the present case, it does not appear from the file that the anonymisation order had such a profound impact on the performance by the newspaper Le Soir of its journalistic tasks as to impair that performance in practice. (d) Conclusion 255. In the light of the foregoing, the Court notes that the national courts took account in a coherent manner of the nature and seriousness of the judicial facts reported on in the article in question, the fact that the article had no topical, historical or scientific interest, and the fact that G. was not well known. In addition, they attached importance to the serious harm suffered by G. as a result of the continued online availability of the article with unrestricted access, which was apt to create a “virtual criminal record”, especially in view of the length of time that had elapsed since the original publication of the article. Furthermore, after reviewing the measures that might be considered in order to balance the rights at stake – a review whose scope was consistent with the procedural standards applicable in Belgium – they held that the anonymisation of the article did not impose an excessive and impracticable burden on the applicant, while constituting the most effective means of protecting G.’s privacy. 256. In those circumstances, and regard being had to the States’ margin of appreciation, the Court finds that the national courts carefully balanced the rights at stake in accordance with the requirements of the Convention, such that the interference with the right guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention on account of the anonymisation of the electronic version of the article on the website of the newspaper Le Soir was limited to what was strictly necessary and can thus, in the circumstances of the case, be regarded as necessary in a democratic society and proportionate. It therefore sees no strong reasons to substitute its own view for that of the domestic courts and to disregard the outcome of the balancing exercise carried out by them. 257. Accordingly, there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT 1. Holds, by twelve votes to five, that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention. 84