WĘGRZYNOWSKI AND SMOLCZEWSKI v. POLAND JUDGMENT 15 65. The Court further notes the finding made by the Warsaw Regional Court that the article in question had been published in the print edition of the newspaper. That court expressed the view that it was not for the courts to order that the article be expunged as if it had never existed (see paragraph 12 above). The Court accepts that it is not the role of judicial authorities to engage in rewriting history by ordering the removal from the public domain of all traces of publications which have in the past been found, by final judicial decisions, to amount to unjustified attacks on individual reputations. Furthermore, it is relevant for the assessment of the case that the legitimate interest of the public in access to the public Internet archives of the press is protected under Article 10 of the Convention. 66. The Court is of the view the alleged violations of rights protected under Article 8 of the Convention should be redressed by adequate remedies available under domestic law. In this respect, it is noteworthy that in the present case the Warsaw Court of Appeal observed that it would be desirable to add a comment to the article on the website informing the public of the outcome of the civil proceedings in which the courts had allowed the applicants’ claim for the protection of their personal rights claim (see paragraph 12 above). The Court is therefore satisfied that the domestic courts were aware of the significance which publications available to the general public on the Internet could have for the effective protection of individual rights. In addition, the courts showed that they appreciated the value of the availability on the newspaper’s website of full information about the judicial decisions concerning the article for the effective protection of the applicant’s rights and reputation. 67. However, the Court emphasises that in the proceedings in the present case the applicant did not submit a specific request for the information to be rectified by means of the addition of a reference to the earlier judgments in his favour. It was neither shown nor even argued before the Court that under the applicable legal framework they could not request the court to specify the steps that they wished to be taken in respect of the internet publication with a view to securing the effective protection of their reputation (compare and contrast with K.U. v. Finland, referred to above, where no such possibility was available to the applicant). 68. Taking into account all the circumstances of the present case, the Court accepts that the State complied with its obligation to strike a balance between the rights guaranteed by Article 10 and, on the other hand, Article 8 of the Convention. A limitation on freedom of expression for the sake of the applicant’s reputation in the circumstances of the present case would have been disproportionate under Article 10 of the Convention (see Karakó v. Hungary, no. 39311/05, § 28, 28 April 2009). 69. The Court therefore upholds the Government’s preliminary objection.