KALDA v. ESTONIA JUDGMENT 15 statement that granting access to additional Internet sites could increase the risk of detainees engaging in prohibited communication, thus giving rise to the need for increased levels of monitoring. The Court also considers that the Supreme Court and the Government have failed to convincingly demonstrate that giving the applicant access to three additional websites would have caused any noteworthy additional costs. In these circumstances, the Court is not persuaded that sufficient reasons have been put forward in the present case to justify the interference with the applicant’s right to receive information. 54. The Court concludes that the interference with the applicant’s right to receive information, in the specific circumstances of the present case, cannot be regarded as having been necessary in a democratic society. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 55. 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.” A. Damage 56. The applicant claimed compensation for the non-pecuniary damage he had sustained as a result of the alleged violation of his rights and asked the Court to determine a fair level of compensation. 57. The Government considered that given that the Convention had not been violated in respect of the applicant, there was no basis for awarding any compensation. Furthermore, they submitted that, should the Court find a violation of the applicant’s rights, such a finding would in itself constitute sufficient just satisfaction. 58. The Court considers that in the circumstances of this case the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any nonpecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. B. Costs and expenses 59. The applicant claimed reimbursement of courier costs, without specifying the sum claimed. 60. The Government asked the Court to reject this claim as the sum had not been specified and no evidence regarding the costs borne had been submitted.