5.  The applicant is a journalist. 6.  On 18 July 2006 a local daily newspaper, the Kostroma Chronometer (Хронометр-Кострома) published in issue no. 29 an article by the applicant entitled “An Unfunny Film” (Несмешное кино). The article read, in so far as relevant, as follows:
“In the midst of the corruption scandals rocking the region, ‘The Red House’ is trying to save face at all costs.
For the sake of the ‘honour of the regiment’.
For several years residents of the Kostroma Region have been forced to watch endless ‘soap operas’ featuring major corruption scandals involving the region’s authorities.
The first episode of the series, ‘There is no corruption in the regional administration’ was released in 2002, when a criminal investigation was initiated against D.S., the Deputy Governor of the Region. The investigation was opened on suspicion of his having inflicted moderately grave bodily injuries, as well as – under Article 201 of the Criminal Code a corruption-related provision – suspected embezzlement constituting abuse of public office.
In spite of the serious nature of the criminal charges brought against his deputy, Governor V.Sh. tried to shield his subordinate at all costs, attempting to uphold ‘the honour of the regiment’ (честь мундира). But whilst the scandal-ridden deputy languished in his remand prison cell and sat in the court room during the trial, a comfortable chair was quietly awaiting its owner back at ‘The Red House’ (‘красный дом’).
In February 2003 the Governor sent to judge M. petition no. 134/gl on a piece of stationery carrying the coat of arms of the Kostroma Region, in which he made a remarkably simple demand: ‘If the court finds that the actions with which D.S. has been charged are of a criminal nature, I ask you to examine the possibility of terminating the criminal proceedings against him.’ It is curious that even after the delivery of the verdict finding D.S. guilty, Governor V.Sh. persisted and for a long time refused to dismiss from office the civil servant who had tainted his reputation. He was able to part with such a ‘promising’ employee only after the prosecutor of the region had made an official request to this end...” 7.  On 28 July 2006 the Administration of the Kostroma Region and V.Sh., Governor of the Kostroma Region, lodged defamation claims with the Leninskiy District Court of Kostroma (“the District Court”) against the publisher of the Kostroma Chronometer and the applicant, seeking retraction of certain statements and claiming compensation in respect of non‑pecuniary damage. The claimants challenged, in particular, the following statements: “In the midst of the corruption scandals rocking the region, ‘The Red House’ is trying to save face at all costs” and “[i]n spite of the serious nature of the criminal charges brought against his deputy, the Governor tried to shield his subordinate at all costs, attempting to uphold the honour of the regiment”. 8.  On 5 October 2006 the District Court partially allowed the defamation claims, finding that one of the impugned statements was untruthful and ordering that a retraction be published and that the applicant and the newspaper pay 500 Russian roubles (RUB) (approximately 15 euros (EUR) at the exchange rate applicable at the time) and RUB 1,000 (approximately EUR 30), respectively, in compensation for non‑pecuniary damage. The judgment read, in so far as relevant, as follows:
“Analysing the article’s contents as a whole and the information therein disputed by the claimants, the court concludes that ... the expression ‘to save face’ referring to the corruption scandals in the region and endeavours of the administration of the Kostroma Region is not defamatory for the reason that the criminal prosecution of the heads of the region’s executive bodies and unitary enterprises was a known fact. All these events attracted public attention and drew wide public response in the region, regardless of articles in the press.
The claim of the article’s author that the Administration of the Kostroma Region was trying to ‘save face’ in the midst of corruption scandals does not imply a statement that this State agency is trying to justify, especially by any unlawful means, any of its actions or those of its employees.
In view of the foregoing, the court finds no grounds to allow the claims brought by the Administration of the Kostroma Region.
The statements published in the newspaper concerning Governor V.Sh.’s attempts to shield, at all costs, the actions of his subordinate D.S., who was facing criminal charges, have not been confirmed [as truthful] in the course of the court hearing.
The court has established that on 9 February 2003 Governor V.Sh. sent to federal judge M. a petition seeking termination of the criminal proceedings against D.S. ... The Governor requested that the court examine the possible termination of criminal proceedings against D.S., taking into account legal norms in force.
‘Shielding’ [выгораживание] is defined in the dictionary ... as proving that someone is not involved in something, with a view to escaping responsibility.
‘At all costs’ [всеми силами] means [according to the dictionary] by all means and in every manner.
The Governor’s petition does not contain any indications that Governor V.Sh. was trying to prove to the court that [his deputy] D.S. had not been involved in the crimes he had been accused of and that he was trying to help him escape criminal responsibility at all costs. The Governor’s request meant that, taking into account the legal norms in force, that is to say in accordance with the law, the court [be invited to] examine the possibility of terminating the criminal case, taking into account the time that had elapsed since the commission of the offences by D.S. and the information concerning the latter’s personal character.
Consequently, the information contained in the article in the part impugned by the claimant does not reflect the truth.
In the court’s opinion, the statements disseminated concerning the Governor are of a damaging nature because they lead a reader to the opinion that he has broken moral and ethical norms, behaved improperly towards society, [and] ignored the requirements of the criminal procedure laws.
Moreover, according to the dictionary ..., ‘the honour of the regiment’ implies an ironical attitude to apparent decency and a falsely impeccable reputation. This expression describes a person who, for the sake of personal or narrowly interpreted institutional interests, does not want to wash his dirty linen in public [and] wishes to maintain decency and a good reputation by any means possible.
The defendants failed to provide evidence that would objectively demonstrate that, when sending the petition concerning the termination of the criminal case against D.S., the Governor was pursuing his private interests or those of the Administration of the Kostroma Region.
Accordingly, the [defamation] claims of the Governor of the Kostroma Region regarding the protection of his honour, dignity and business reputation are well‑founded in law and should be granted.” 9.  The applicant and the editor-in-chief of the newspaper appealed against the judgment to the Kostroma Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) referring, inter alia, to the fact that the impugned statements represented value judgments which had a strong factual basis in the form of the Governor’s petition to judge M. The Administration of the Kostroma Region also appealed. 10.  On 11 December 2006 the Regional Court rejected the applicant’s appeal and upheld the judgment of 5 October 2006 in full. Its reasoning included the following:
“When deciding on the claims brought by the Governor of the Kostroma Region, the [District] court reasonably concluded that the defendants had not proven in the course of the hearing that the Governor had tried to shield his subordinate by all means and in every manner, that is, at all costs, in order to uphold ‘the honour of the regiment’. The [District] court therefore reached the correct conclusion that the statement in question was untruthful and damaging for the Governor. This finding by the [District] court is well-reasoned, corresponds to the requirements of law and to the case materials, [and] there are no grounds for declaring it erroneous.
Ms Skudayeva’s argument that an author has the right to express her own opinion − value judgments which are not susceptible of proof − cannot serve as grounds for quashing the judgment [of 5 October 2006]. Indeed, Ms Skudayeva, just like any other individual, has a right to express her personal opinion, judgment and appraisement (суждение). However, if personal opinions, judgments or appraisements contain statements which tarnish a person’s honour, dignity and reputation, they must be truthful. Under Article 17 § 3 of the Constitution of Russia, the realisation of human rights and freedoms cannot breach the rights and freedoms of others.
Furthermore, the statements in question include the statement of fact that ‘[i]n spite of the serious nature of the criminal charges brought against his deputy, Governor V.Sh. tried to shield his subordinate at all costs, attempting to uphold ‘the honour of the regiment’, and proof of that [statement] is given later’.” 11.  According to the applicant, the bailiffs’ service received RUB 500 from her in V.Sh.’s favour on 17 January 2007.