VLADIMIR KHARITONOV v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT the United Kingdom had established that users of the blocked website should be redirected to a page informing them of their right to challenge the blocking order. 53. The third-party intervener, the European Information Society Institute, submitted that both ex ante and ex post remedies for over-blocking needed to be implemented. Ex ante remedies should include prior notification to the owners of collaterally blocked websites, who could be identified by performing a “reverse IP address lookup” and creating a possibility to challenge a blocking order before it was implemented. Ex post remedies would enable the owner of a collaterally blocked website to lodge an appeal against the blocking order, limit the duration of blocking orders and ensure that instances of over-blocking were subsequently monitored. 54. The Court notes that the complaint under Article 13 arises from the same facts as those it has examined when dealing with the complaint under Article 10 above. However, there is a difference in the nature of the interests protected by Article 13 of the Convention and those protected under Article 10: the former affords a procedural safeguard, namely the “right to an effective remedy”, whereas the procedural requirement inherent in the latter is ancillary to the wider purpose of ensuring respect for the substantive right to freedom of expression (see Iatridis v. Greece [GC], no. 31107/96, § 65, ECHR 1999-II). Having regard to the difference in purpose of the safeguards afforded by the two Articles, the Court considers it appropriate in the instant case to examine the same set of facts under both provisions. 55. The Court notes that the applicant had an arguable claim of a violation of his right to freedom of expression. Accordingly, Article 13 required that he should have a domestic remedy which was “effective” in practice as well as in law, in the sense of preventing the alleged violation or its continuation, or of providing adequate redress for any violation that had already occurred. 56. Although the applicant was able to bring proceedings seeking a review of Roskomnadzor’s blocking order and its effect on his website, the Russian courts refused to consider the substance of his grievance. They examined neither the lawfulness nor the proportionality of the effects of the blocking order on the applicant’s website. Accordingly, the Court finds that the remedy which the national law provided for was not effective in the circumstances of the applicant’s case (see Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia, nos. 60921/17 and 7202/18, § 64, 30 April 2019). 57. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 10. 16