INDEX.HU ZRT v. HUNGARY JUDGMENT aspect related to the public interest. Placed in the context of the article as a whole, it is clear that A.V.’s story was part of the reporting on a media initiative which was a topical event at the time, and which had seemingly been the subject of public attention and engagement. The basic reason for publishing the story had been to draw attention to and illustrate that initiative, which was in turn intended to counter the perceived smear campaign being run against the organisers of an anti-government demonstration, rather than to gratuitously insult or attack J.A. Having regard to that wider background, the Court considers that the impugned statement seen in its proper context constituted a comment on a matter of public interest. 36. Furthermore, J.A., as a politician, inevitably and knowingly laid himself open to close scrutiny of his every word and deed by both journalists and the public at large, and he should have displayed an accordingly greater degree of tolerance (see Makraduli v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, nos. 64659/11 and 24133/13, § 71, 19 July 2018). While that requirement of tolerance did not involve a duty to tolerate factual inaccuracies (see Axel Springer SE v. Germany, no. 8964/18, § 42, 17 January 2023) and J.A. was certainly entitled to have his reputation protected, the requirements of such protection should have been weighed against the public interest in the open discussion of political issues. However, in the present case the domestic courts did not perform any such balancing and did not take into account the Convention aspects of the case; they failed to include in their assessment any considerations as regards the contribution of the article to debate on a matter of public interest, or the scrutiny that J.A. should have anticipated regarding his actions. 37. As to the content, form and consequences of the impugned statements, the Court notes firstly that the article in question consisted of defamatory statements of fact, according to the findings made by the domestic courts. Even accepting that the allegations were of such a nature and such gravity as to be capable of causing harm to J.A.’s honour and reputation, the Court cannot disregard the conclusions reached by the Kúria concerning the amount of compensation and its finding in that connection that the publication of the story had not caused J.A. any serious harm. The Kúria reasoned that given his status, J.A. had the means to react to any public statement, a possibility of which he had in fact made use. Furthermore, public opinion had not attached much importance to such “soldiers’ tales”, and the public perception of J.A. had not changed as a result of the article. 38. As to the veracity of the information and the way in which it had been obtained, the Court emphasises that the applicant company was bound by the Article 10 “duties and responsibilities” and therefore had to act in good faith in order to provide accurate and reliable information in accordance with the ethics of journalism. 39. The Court observes in this connection that the applicant company specified that A.V. did not perfectly remember the story, explained the 9