ANNEN v. GERMANY – JUDGMENT 17 persistently available online. Bearing in mind the need to protect the values underlying the Convention, and considering that the rights under Articles 10 and 8 of the Convention deserve equal respect, a balance must be struck that retains the essence of both rights. Thus, while the Court acknowledges that important benefits can be derived from the Internet in the exercise of freedom of expression, it is also mindful that liability for defamatory or other types of unlawful speech must, in principle, be retained and constitute an effective remedy for violations of personality rights (see Delfi AS, cited above, § 110). 68. The Court notes, at the outset, that the Court of Appeal found that the labelling of the doctors as “abortion doctors” on a website which was called “www.babycaust.de" implied a connection between the doctors and crimes which were, according to the applicant, comparable to the crimes committed by the Nazis during the Holocaust. It thus concluded, in eight lines of its relevant judgment, that the applicant had put the doctors’ actions on a level with the Holocaust and with mass murder, and that this was not covered by the applicant’s freedom of expression (see paragraph 19 above). 69. The Court further notes that the Court of Appeal considered that it had not been necessary for the doctors to submit the exact content of the website, as this website was generally accessible and its content was thus known. Furthermore, the Court observes, and this was not contested by the Government, that neither a description of the webpage’s exact content and layout nor a screenshot was included in the domestic case files. 70. As to the judgment’s reasoning, the Court observes that the Court of Appeal limited itself to finding that the same principles which had been elaborated with regard to the leaflet should also apply to the website. The domestic courts thus appear neither to have examined the content and the overall context of the specific link “death or life”/“request for prayers for Germany” under which the doctors’ names and professional address had been published in an alphabetical list, nor to have interpreted the expression “abortion doctors” against the background that abortions were in fact performed at the day clinic. 71. The Court reiterates that its task is to review whether the national authorities applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 and, moreover, whether they relied on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (paragraph 54 above). It further observes that an examination of the case would therefore involve individual and contextual assessment, with reference to the situation at the time when the impugned publication was put online (compare Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia, a. s. v. Slovakia, no. 41262/05, § 106, 26 July 2011; Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia, a.s. v. Slovakia (no. 3), no. 37986/09, §§ 83, 84, 7 January 2014).