The ECtHR recognised however that in certain circumstances the rights under Article 10 ECHR and Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 may conflict and it may be considered necessary, in the period preceding or during an election, to place certain restrictions on freedom of expression, of a type which would not usually be acceptable, in order to secure the “free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature”. The Court recognised that, in striking the balance between these two rights, member states have a margin of appreciation, as they do generally with regard to the organisation of their electoral systems. At the same time, it stressed that any restrictions on freedom of expression must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and necessary in a democratic society. The Court indicated for example that Article 10 ECtHR as such does not prohibit discussion or dissemination of information received even if it is strongly suspected that this information might not be truthful. On the other hand, attention is drawn to the Court’s decision concerning the right of an NGO to make political advertisements on radio and television, in which it balanced the applicant NGO’s right to impart information and ideas of general interest which the public is entitled to receive with the authorities’ desire to protect the democratic debate and process from distortion by powerful financial groups with advantageous access to influential media. The Court recognised that such groups could obtain competitive advantages in the area of paid advertising and thereby curtail a free and pluralist debate, of which the state remains the ultimate guarantor. As a result, the risk of an imbalance between political forces in competition has to be taken into account to maintain a free and pluralist debate.