36 COMMUNIST PARTY OF RUSSIA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT Manole and Others, cited above, §§ 100-01). In the context of elections the duty of the State to adopt some positive measures to secure pluralism of views has also been recognised by the Court (see, for example, MathieuMohin and Clerfayt, cited above, § 54; see also, mutatis mutandis, Informationsverein Lentia and Others v. Austria, judgment of 24 November 1993, Series A no. 276, § 38, and Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs and Others v. Russia, nos. 55066/00 and 55638/00, §§ 71-72, 11 January 2007). 126. Turning to the present case, the Court notes that the State was under an obligation to intervene in order to open up the media to different viewpoints. That being said, it is clear that the time and technical facilities available for political broadcast were not unlimited. As the case shows, the applicants did obtain some measure of access to the nation-wide TV channels; thus, they were provided with free and paid airtime, with no distinction made between the different political forces. The amount of airtime allocated to the opposition candidates was not insignificant. The applicants did not claim that the procedure of distribution of airtime was unfair in any way. Similar provisions regulated access of parties and candidates to regional TV channels and other mass media. In addition, the opposition parties and candidates were able to convey their political message to the electorate through the media they controlled. In this connection, the Court also notes that it follows from the report of the OSCE/ODIHR, which generally found that the main country-wide state sponsored broadcasters that were monitored, openly promoted United Russia, that voters who actively sought information could obtain it from various sources (see paragraph 20 above). The Court considers that the arrangements which existed during the 2003 elections guaranteed the opposition parties and candidates at least minimum visibility on TV. 127. Lastly, the Court turns to the applicants’ allegation that the State should have ensured neutrality of the audio-visual media. The “duty of neutrality”, invoked by the applicant, was referred to by the Venice Commission as one of the preconditions of equal suffrage (see paragraph 51 above). The Court has already admitted that political pluralism can be regarded as a “pressing social need” legitimising some forms of interference with the freedom of expression (see Bowman, cited above). At the same time the Court has repeatedly warned against prior restraints on free speech (see, for example, The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 2), 26 November 1991, § 51, Series A no. 217), and stressed that in the sphere of political debate wide limits of criticism are acceptable (see Lingens v. Austria, judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103, §§ 41 and 42). The question is what sort of interference with journalistic freedom would be appropriate in the circumstances in order to protect the applicants’ rights under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. The Russian legislation then in force defined neutrality and editorial independence as basic principles according