8 YOUTH INITIATIVE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS v. SERBIA JUDGMENT no. 5056/10, § 69, 11 October 2011). Although it is in principle not for the Court to determine what remedial measures may be appropriate to satisfy the respondent State’s obligations under Article 46 of the Convention, the violation found in this case, by its very nature, does not leave any real choice as to the measures required to remedy it (see Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 202, ECHR 2004-II, and Karanović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 39462/03, § 29, 20 November 2007). 32. In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that the most natural execution of its judgment, and that which would best correspond to the principle of restitutio in integrum, would have been to secure that the intelligence agency of Serbia provide the applicant with the information requested (namely, how many people were subjected to electronic surveillance by that agency in the course of 2005). IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 33. Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” 34. The applicant claimed 8,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage suffered on account of the fact that, because of the refusal of the intelligence agency to provide it with the information requested, it had been unable to generate, and contribute to, an open and well-informed public debate on the use of electronic surveillance measures in Serbia. 35. The Government contested that claim. 36. The Court considers that the finding of a breach and the order made in paragraph 32 above constitute sufficient just satisfaction for any nonpecuniary damage which the applicant may have suffered (see Társaság a Szabadságjogokért, cited above, § 43). FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY 1. Declares the complaint under Article 10 of the Convention admissible; 2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention; 3. Holds that there is no need to examine the complaint under Article 6 of the Convention;