HURBAIN v. BELGIUM JUDGMENT “right to be forgotten” of a person who was the subject of content published on the Internet; those rights were not absolute. The choice of measures to secure compliance with Article 8 – from which the “right to be forgotten” was derived – fell within the States’ margin of appreciation, which enabled them to adapt to the circumstances of each case and to future technological developments. Referring to Times Newspapers Ltd v. the United Kingdom (nos. 1 and 2) (nos. 3002/03 and 23676/03, § 45, ECHR 2009), the Government added that the role of the press in keeping archives accessible to the public was secondary to its main role, and that the margin of appreciation afforded to States in striking a balance between the competing interests was likely to be greater where news archives of past events, rather than news reporting of current affairs, were concerned. 151. In the present case, the measure in issue had been taken on the basis of a fair balancing of those rights by the domestic courts, in the light of the criteria defined by the Court. In the Government’s view, the Grand Chamber should reaffirm the line of case-law followed by the Chamber, according to which the criteria to be taken into account regarding the online publication or continued availability of archived material were in principle the same as those applied by the Court in the context of initial publication. The Government submitted, however, that some of these might be of greater or lesser relevance in view of the circumstances of the case (for instance, publication on the Internet rather than in print or the fact of asserting the “right to be forgotten” vis-à-vis a news publisher rather than a search engine operator) and of the passage of time. As time passed, individuals should have the opportunity to rebuild their lives without being confronted with their past mistakes by members of the public. 152. Nevertheless, other criteria might also be taken into consideration depending on the circumstances of the particular case. A first criterion was the integrity of the archives. However, this principle, underpinning all archiving activity, did not mean that the accessibility of archived material should be absolute, as made clear by the Universal Declaration on Archives (see paragraph 59 above) and by Article 17 GDPR (see paragraph 69 above). Furthermore, archived material, which could be stored in a wide variety of formats, did not have to be accessible to everyone on the Internet. In the Government’s view, the anonymisation order made in the present case did not undermine the integrity of the archives but simply limited public access to an online article mentioning G.’s name. The paper archives would remain intact and interested persons such as researchers could still request access to the non-anonymised digital version of the article. 153. Another relevant criterion in the present case was the time that had elapsed since the initial publication of the article. This had a decisive influence on the weight to be attached to the other factors already taken into consideration in the balancing exercise carried out by the Court, namely the existence of a debate of public interest and whether or not the person in 54