ORLOVSKAYA ISKRA v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 27 Court does not need to enquire any further whether this amended procedure was a remedy to be exhausted within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. 78. In view of the above considerations, it should be concluded that at the material time, that is in 2007 and 2008, there existed a three-month time-limit for making use of the supervisory review procedure under the CAO (compare Kashlan, cited above). 79. Given that the supervisory-review proceedings were launched within a period of time that corresponded to the three-month time-limit mentioned in the CComP, that these proceedings remained within the same chain of domestic remedies, and that these proceedings were, in principle, capable of dealing with the substance of the relevant Convention issue and to afford adequate redress, the Court accepts that the applicant organisation could reasonably count in 2008 on the effectiveness of this remedy before lodging an application before the Court and was required to pursue this remedy before lodging an application before the Court. 80. Therefore, the Court will take into account the supervisory-review decision taken by the regional court on 29 January 2008 for the purpose of applying the six-month rule, and concludes that the applicant organisation has thus complied with this rule. 81. There is therefore no need to question further the role of the second round of supervisory proceedings or the Constitutional Court’s decision for these purposes. 82. The Court concludes therefore that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. No other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established. It must therefore be declared admissible. B. Merits 1. The parties’ submissions (a) The Government 83. The Government submitted that both Article 10 of the Convention (in referring to “duties and responsibilities” as well as to formalities, conditions and penalties) and the domestic law permitted the State to put in place a framework containing the procedure of and conditions of the information flow. While Article 10 of the Convention included the freedom to impart information, Russian law provided for constitutional “freedom of mass information” along with the freedom of expression and freedom of thought. The Constitutional Court also recognised a higher degree of responsibility relating to the exercise of the freedom of mass information on a professional scale.