447_13 interference 13. These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its well-established case-law (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20 September 2016, concerning examination of criminal cases in the absence of a prosecuting party in the judicial proceedings governed by the CAO; Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, §§ 106-225, 26 April 2016, related to disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against participants of solo manifestations; Kasparov and Others v. Russia no. 21613/07, §§ 84-97, 3 October 2013; and Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, §§ 102-42, 5 January 2016, concerning disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against participants of public assemblies).