174_114 interference 114. In so far as Mr Achilov complained about the termination of the demonstration, the Court first notes that it is precluded from assessing the validity of the grounds adduced by the mayor for objecting to the demonstration (see paragraph 105 above). It was briefly mentioned in the domestic proceedings (see paragraph 36 above) that the demonstrators had placed themselves on the road, impeding traffic and the reconstruction works in the immediate vicinity. However, the Court is not satisfied that all the relevant facts were properly established in the course of the various sets of domestic proceedings and subjected to a thorough assessment in order to ascertain whether the termination of the demonstration (or of the applicant’s participation therein) was “necessary in a democratic society”, in particular on account of any valid reasons going beyond the mere illegality of the demonstration (see Lashmankin and Others, cited above, § 461), for instance in pursuance of the protection of the “rights of others” and public safety. The courts did not adduce any reasons which would be both relevant and sufficient to justify the “interference”. In particular, it was not ascertained whether and, if so, in what manner and to what extent the demonstration caused any disruption to ordinary life (see Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, § 155 et seq., ECHR 2015). The Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention in respect of Mr Achilov on that account (see, in the same vein, Nikolayev [Committee], cited above, § 57, and the cases cited therein).