160_31 interference 31. The Court notes that it has already examined the case of the applicants’ co-protestor and co-defendant Ms Taranenko and found that her pre-trial detention and the penalty imposed on her at the end of it amounted to an interference with her rights under Article 10 of the Convention interpreted in the light of Article 11 and that that interference was not necessary in a democratic society. In particular, the Court found that the actions of the police in arresting the protesters and removing them from the President’s Administration’s premises might be considered as justified by the demands of ANGIROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 7 the protection of public order. However, bearing in mind the length of the detention pending trial and the exceptional seriousness of the penalty imposed on Mr Taranenko, the pre-trial detention and the sanction were not proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (see Taranenko v. Russia, no. 19554/05, §§ 68-97, 15 May 2014).