120_75 interference 75. The Court notes that it is apparent from the court decision that the applicant was convicted for violating public order during a demonstration and, more specifically, the demonstration of 7 April 2003 held on the Mashtots Avenue. The actions which led to a penalty being imposed on the applicant, according to the judge’s findings, were the “obstruction of street traffic” and the “loud noise” she made during this demonstration which, in the Court’s opinion, were the direct result of her participation in it. Thus, 16 ASHUGHYAN v. ARMENIA JUDGMENT the Government’s assertion that the applicant blocked a street which had nothing to do with the demonstration has no basis in the findings of the domestic court. It follows that the applicant was convicted for her behaviour at the demonstration.