32 COMMUNIST PARTY OF RUSSIA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT ii. Alleged manipulation of the media by the Government 111. In most of the previous cases under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 the Court has had to consider a specific legislative provision or a known administrative measure which has somehow limited the electoral rights of a group of the population or of a specific candidate. In those cases the measure complained of lay within the legal field, and, therefore, could be easily identified and analysed (see, for example, the cases concerning electoral thresholds (Yumak and Sadak, cited above), the right of prisoners to vote (Hirst, cited above), criteria of eligibility of candidates on account of their political affiliation or other status (Ždanoka, cited above; Seyidzade v. Azerbaijan, no. 37700/05, 3 December 2009), compositions of electoral commissions (The Georgian Labour Party v. Georgia, no. 9103/04, ECHR 2008), restrictions on reporting on a particular political movement (Purcell and Others v. Ireland, no. 15404/89, 16 April 1991), or impossibility for nationals living abroad to vote (Sitaropoulos and Giakoumopoulos v. Greece [GC], no. 42202/07, 15 March 2012). 112. The situation in the present case is different. The applicants did not deny that Russian law guaranteed neutrality of the broadcasting companies, making no distinction between pro-governmental and opposition parties, and proclaimed the principle of editorial independence of the broadcasting companies. They claimed, however, that the law was not complied with in practice, and that de jure neutrality of the five nationwide channels did not exist de facto. 113. The applicant’s position in the present case can be narrowed down to three main factual assertions. First, the applicants alleged that media coverage on the five TV channels had been predominantly hostile to the opposition parties and candidates. Secondly, they asserted that it was a result of a political manipulation, that the executive authorities and/or United Russia had used their influence to impose a policy on the TV companies which had helped to promote United Russia. Thirdly, the applicants claimed that biased media coverage on TV had affected public opinion to a critical extent, and had made the elections not “free”. 114. As to the first point, the Court observes that the Supreme Court in its judgment of 16 December 2004 did not find that the media coverage had been equal in all respects. Many observers (in particular the OSCE and the CEC Working Group, see paragraphs 20 and 26 above) which monitored the elections noted that the TV media coverage was unfavourable to the opposition. The Supreme Court’s conclusion was formulated more carefully and in a qualified manner: it noted that the tenor of media coverage on TV during the elections had not been so “egregious” to make the ascertaining of the genuine will of the voters impossible. 115. The answer given by the Supreme Court to the applicant’s first point was somewhat elusive. Conversely, on the other two propositions of the applicants the Supreme Court was more explicit. It found in essence that