12 WĘGRZYNOWSKI AND SMOLCZEWSKI v. POLAND JUDGMENT pursued by the authorities (see, among other authorities, Olsson v. Sweden (No. 1), 24 March 1988, § 67, Series A no. 130). 54. In addition, there may also be positive obligations inherent in effective “respect” for private life. These obligations may involve the adoption of measures designed to secure respect for private life even in the sphere of relations between individuals, including both the provision of a regulatory framework of adjudicatory and enforcement machinery protecting individuals’ rights, and the implementation, where appropriate, of specific measures (see, among other authorities, X and Y v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1985, § 23, Series A no. 91, and R.R. v. Poland, no. 27617/04, §§ 183-184, ECHR 2011 (extracts)). 55. The notion of “respect” for private life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention for the purposes of the State’s positive obligations is not clear-cut. In view of the diversity of the practices followed and the situations obtaining in the Contracting States, the notion’s requirements will vary considerably from case to case. Accordingly, this is an area in which the Contracting Parties enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in determining the steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the Convention, account being taken of the needs and resources of the community and of individuals. Nonetheless, Article 8, like any other provision of the Convention or its protocols, must be interpreted in such a way as to guarantee not rights that are theoretical or illusory but rights that are practical and effective (see Armonienė v. Lithuania, no. 36919/02, § 38, 25 November 2008, and Biriuk v. Lithuania, no. 23373/03, § 37, 25 November 2008). 56. In particular, in cases concerning newspaper publications, the Court has previously held that the protection of private life has to be balanced, among other things, against the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention (see Karakó v. Hungary, no. 39311/05, § 26, 28 April 2009; Armonienė, cited above, § 39; Biriuk, cited above, § 38; Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, § 89 et seq., 7 February 2012). This interplay between Article 10 and Article 8 was highlighted by the Court on numerous occasions (see, for instance, Von Hannover v. Germany, no. 59320/00, ECHR 2004-VI, Karakó v. Hungary, cited above). As a matter of principle the rights guaranteed by these provisions deserve equal respect (see Hachette Filipacchi Associés (ICI PARIS) v. France, no. 12268/03, § 41, 23 July 2009; Timciuc v. Romania (dec.), no. 28999/03, § 144, 12 October 2010; and Mosley v. the United Kingdom, no. 48009/08, § 111, 10 May 2011). 57. The Court has reiterated on numerous occasions that freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and in that context the safeguards guaranteed to the press are particularly important. The Court has also observed that the most careful of scrutiny under Article 10 is required where measures or sanctions imposed