ORLOVSKAYA ISKRA v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 39 number of other decisions. This Court has carefully examined the reasoning put forward by the Russian Constitutional Court to justify the distinction between “information” and “campaigning” and, foremost, for restricting the activity of mass media outlets during an election campaign. 124. It transpires from the constitutional ruling of 16 June 2006 (see paragraph 51 above) that the regulatory framework was meant to “take account of the historical conditions that prevail[ed] at a particular stage of the country’s development” when “the need to ensure transparent financing of elections required reinforced safeguards”, “also taking into account the [then] current realistic possibility of control over the financing of elections”. Judge Kononov, in his separate opinion to the ruling of 30 October 2003, suggested that the exclusion of mass media outlets from engaging in election campaigning might be aimed at dealing with the issue of “black PR” (see paragraph 48 above). 125. The Court reiterates in this connection that by reason of their direct and continuous contact with the vital forces of their countries, their societies and their needs, the legislative and judicial authorities are best placed to assess the particular difficulties in safeguarding the democratic order in their State (see Animal Defenders International, cited above, § 111). The State must therefore be accorded some discretion as regards this country-specific and complex assessment which is of central relevance to the legislative choices at issue (ibid.). However, neither the above rulings themselves nor the Government in the present case developed this line of argument, in particular to demonstrate how the special regulations in questions related to and actually addressed the situation mentioned in paragraph 124 above in a proportionate manner while being “necessary in a democratic society”. 126. The Court has at its disposal no information relating to the quality of the parliamentary review of the necessity of the special regulatory framework, to enable the Court to ascertain the operation of the relevant margin of appreciation. 127. As to the practical implications of the special regulations on the freedom of expression, as the Constitutional Court admitted, despite their formal distinction both information and campaigning could induce voters to make a certain choice; the only criterion to distinguish between them would be the existence of a particular campaign aim, namely to incline the voters to support or oppose a certain candidate (see paragraphs 23 and 44 above). 128. In the Court’s view, while it may be desirable, for the sake of the “free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature” or another legitimate and compelling consideration, for publications to contain a review of several candidates or parties or their programmes, it is difficult if not impossible to ascertain whether the content in relation to a candidate should be perceived as a mere “negative comment” or whether it had a “campaigning” goal. The domestic regulative framework restricted the activity of the print media on the basis of a criterion that was vague and