26 YUMAK AND SADAK v. TURKEY JUDGMENT D. The Court’s assessment 1. General principles established by the case-law of the Convention institutions (a) Criteria applied by the Court in relation to Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 105. The Court emphasises in the first place that Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 enshrines a characteristic principle of an effective democracy and is accordingly of prime importance in the Convention system (see MathieuMohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, 2 March 1987, �� 47, Series A no. 113). Democracy constitutes a fundamental element of the “European public order”, and the rights guaranteed under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 are crucial to establishing and maintaining the foundations of an effective and meaningful democracy governed by the rule of law (see, most recently and among many other authorities, Ždanoka v. Latvia [GC], no. 58278/00, §§ 98 and 103, ECHR 2006-IV). 106. The Court has often emphasised the role of the State as ultimate guarantor of pluralism and stated that in performing that role the State is under an obligation to adopt positive measures to “organise” democratic elections “under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature” (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt, cited above, § 54; see also, mutatis mutandis, Informationsverein Lentia and Others v. Austria, 24 November 1993, § 38, Series A no. 276). 107. Free elections and freedom of expression, and particularly the freedom of political debate, form the foundation of any democracy (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt, cited above, § 47, and Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, §§ 41-42, Series A no. 103). The “free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature” is a matter on which Article 11 of the Convention also has a bearing, guaranteeing as it does freedom of association, and thus indirectly the freedom of political parties, which represent a form of association essential to the proper functioning of democracy. Expression of the opinion of the people is inconceivable without the assistance of a plurality of political parties representing the currents of opinion flowing through a country’s population. By reflecting those currents, not only within political institutions but also, thanks to the media, at all levels of life in society, they make an irreplaceable contribution to the political debate which is at the very core of the concept of a democratic society (see Lingens, cited above, § 42; Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 43, Series A no. 236; and United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey, 30 January 1998, § 44, Reports 1998-I). 108. As the Commission has observed on a number of occasions, the words “free expression of the opinion of the people” mean that elections