87_231 interference 231. To the extent that the object of the Court’s examination in this part of the application is the evaluation of the applicants’ conviction from the point of 18 KUOLELIS AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA DECISION view Articles 9, 10, 11 and 14 of the Convention, the Court has competence ratione temporis, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, to examine this part of the application, in that the applicants were convicted on 23 August 1999, that is after the entry into force of the Convention with respect to Lithuania. It is true that the applicants did not mention specifically Articles 9, 10, 11 or 14 of the Convention during the impugned domestic proceedings. However, it is undisputed that they did raise the substance of their Convention complaints while defending themselves against the criminal charges. Therefore, this aspect of the case cannot be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.