ORLOVSKAYA ISKRA v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 37 (paragraph 104 above), the Court will now turn to the question of the margin of appreciation retained by the respondent State in putting in place the impugned regulations and for interfering with the applicant’s freedom protected by Article 10 § 1 of the Convention. 115. The Court has taken note of the Government’s argument about the wider margin of appreciation retained by the States in putting in place regulations on elections and when interfering with rights under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 and in relation to commercial matters or political advertising (see paragraph 86 above). However, the present case concerns the “interference” within the meaning of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention, arising in the area of political expression in the time of elections. The publications were related to the applicant’s exercise of its freedom to impart information and ideas, and the content of the publications was part of the normal journalistic coverage of a political debate in the print media, in view of the Court’s findings in the following paragraphs. Therefore, it is not pertinent to refer to the Court’s case-law relating to political advertising, in television broadcasting or otherwise (see TV Vest AS and Rogaland Pensjonistparti, cited above, §§ 64 and 67), or the case-law concerning publications within the commercial context of product marketing, an area in which States have traditionally enjoyed a wider margin of appreciation (see Ärztekammer für Wien and Dorner v. Austria, no. 8895/10, §§ 65-66, 16 February 2016). 116. Thus, there was little scope for restrictions, especially on account of the strong interest of a democratic society in the press exercising its vital role as a public watchdog (see the cases cited in paragraphs 107-108 above). (β) Whether the respondent State acted within its margin of appreciation and in compliance with the principle of proportionality 117. The Government’s central argument was that the regulatory framework was acceptable because for a period during the electoral campaign it was obligatory for the print media to demonstrate a degree of neutrality and objectivity in their coverage of the election. The applicant organisation argued in reply that the “campaigning” regulations entailed an excessive restriction on public debate in the print media during the election period. 118. The Court takes note of the Russian legislature’s choice of preventing mass media outlets from participating on their own in “election campaigning”, that is from acting in a way intended to induce voters to vote for or against a candidate or a political party. The legislation covers articles, such as that in the present case, which focus predominantly on one person in combination with commentaries. It is also noted that the Russian legislature put in place a regulatory framework aimed at defining the scope of the media’s work during elections and providing for penalties for related breaches.