160_32 interference 32. The Court sees no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case. For the reasons stated in detail in Taranenko (cited above, §§ 76-79), it finds that the arrest of the protesters, including the applicants, and their removal from the President’s Administration’s premises by the police may be considered as answering a “pressing social need”. On the other hand, for the reasons also stated in Taranenko (cited above, §§ 90-97), the Court finds that, although a sanction for the applicants’ actions might have been warranted by the demands of public order, the lengthy period of detention pending trial and the long prison sentences imposed on them were not proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. Indeed, like Ms Taranenko, the applicants in the present case were also remanded in custody for a year and were convicted either to long suspended prison sentences or to long prison sentences without remission which were actually served. It is significant in this connection that none of the applicants was accused of any use or threat of violence against individuals or infliction of any bodily harm to anyone. Nor did the domestic courts establish whether any of the applicants had personally participated in damaging State property or had committed any other reprehensible act. It is also significant that before the end of the trial the defendants compensated all the pecuniary damage caused by their protest action.