14 ALTUĞ TANER AKÇAM v. TURKEY JUDGMENT 63. The Government noted that the victim-status requirement was closely linked to the subsidiary nature of the control system under the Convention. The exercise of the right of individual petition could not be used to prevent a potential violation of the Convention: in theory, the Convention system did not allow the examination - or, if applicable, finding – of a violation other than a posteriori, once that violation had occurred (see Noël Narvii Tauira and 18 others, cited above; Federation Chrétienne des Témoins de Jehovah v. France (dec.), no. 53430/99, 6 November 2001; and Décision Est Video Communication SA and others v. France (dec.), no. 66286/01, 8 October 2002). Although the Court recognised that there could be exceptions to this rule, the applicant’s circumstances did not fall within the said exceptions. The applicant had not produced reasonable and convincing evidence of the likelihood that a violation affecting him personally would occur; mere suspicion or conjecture was not sufficient in this regard (see Ada Rossi and Others v. Italy (dec.), nos. 55185/08, 55483/08, 55516/08, 55519/08, 56010/08, 56278/08, 58420/08 and 58424/08, ECHR 2008-... , and Arabadjiev and Stavrev v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 7380/02, 14 February 2006). 64. Finally, the Government claimed that the victim status of an applicant should persist throughout the proceedings before the Court. In other words, that the Court required the existence of an interference against the applicant on the basis of a domestic decision (see Ahmet Kenan Er v. Turkey (dec.), no. 21377, 18 November 2008, and Selahattin Humartaş v. Turkey (dec.), no, 38714/04, 18 November 2008). In the instant case, however, the applicant had never had victim status. 2. The Court’s assessment 65. The Court notes that the question concerning the alleged interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression hinges upon the prior establishment of whether the applicant has been affected by a measure which renders him a victim of a violation of his rights under Article 10 of the Convention. 66. In this connection, the Court reiterates its established jurisprudence that in order to claim to be the victim of a violation, a person must be directly affected by the impugned measure (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, §§ 239-240, Series A, no. 25; Eckle, cited above; and Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 33, Series A no. 28). The Convention does not, therefore, provide for the bringing of an actio popularis for the interpretation of the rights set out therein or permit individuals to complain about a provision of national law simply because they consider, without having been directly affected by it, that it may contravene the Convention (see Norris, cited above, § 31). 67. However, the Court has concluded that an applicant is entitled to “(claim) to be the victim of a violation” of the Convention, even if he is not