YUMAK AND SADAK v. TURKEY JUDGMENT 35 small parties were able to avoid the impact of the threshold by putting up independent candidates, by which means they succeeded in obtaining seats. The DTP, for example, DEHAP’s successor, was able to form a parliamentary group after winning twenty seats in Parliament (see paragraph 25 above). 138. It is true that this result was essentially due to the fact that, instead of putting up their own candidates in their own name, the opposition parties opted for a strategy which might be called “independents supported by a party” (see paragraph 23 above). The fact that independents were not required to reach any threshold greatly facilitated the adoption of that electoral strategy, despite the restrictions listed above (see paragraphs 35 and 38). Nevertheless, this was a makeshift solution compared with the position of a candidate officially sponsored by his or her political party. 139. The same applies to the possibility of forming an electoral coalition with other political groups. The Court notes in that regard that section 16 of Law no. 2839 prevents parties from presenting joint lists and from participating in parliamentary elections by forming perfectly legal coalitions. As the Government pointed out, political parties have developed an electoral strategy whereby they can circumvent this prohibition. Use of this strategy has produced tangible results, particularly in the 1991 and 2007 elections. Before the elections of 20 October 1991, two alliances were formed under the banner of two large political parties. By that means some small parties, including the HEP – DEHAP’s predecessor – managed to obtain eighteen seats in Parliament (see paragraph 15 above). The same electoral strategy bore fruit in the elections of 22 July 2007 (see paragraph 24 above). 140. Admittedly, since 45.3% of the votes in the elections of 3 November 2002 (about 14,500,000) were cast for unsuccessful candidates, these electoral strategies can have only a limited effect. As the Chamber pointed out in paragraph 73 of its judgment, the fact that such a large part of the electorate was not ultimately represented in Parliament was hardly consistent with the crucial role played in a representative democracy by Parliament, which is the main instrument of democratic control and political responsibility, and must reflect as faithfully as possible the desire for a truly democratic political regime. 141. However, it should be noted that, as numerous analysts have remarked, the elections of November 2002 took place in a crisis climate with many different causes (economic and political crises, earthquakes, etc. – see paragraphs 12 and 20 above). In that connection, the fact that the three parties which had formed the governing coalition after the 1999 elections were unable to reach the 10% threshold and were thus deprived of parliamentary representation (see paragraph 20 above) appears significant. 142. In addition, an overall analysis of the parliamentary elections held since 1983 shows that the representation deficit observed after the elections