34 YUMAK AND SADAK v. TURKEY JUDGMENT political evolution of the country concerned, so that features that would be unacceptable in the context of one system may be justified in the context of another, at least so long as the chosen system provides for conditions which will ensure the “free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature” (see, among other authorities, Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt, cited above, § 54). That is why the Court must now assess the effects of the correctives and other safeguards with which the impugned system is attended. (ii) Correctives and other safeguards 133. The Government submitted that the Turkish electoral system has correctives which tend to counterbalance the threshold’s negative effects. In that connection, they argued that, as the elections of 22 July 2007 had confirmed, the applicants could have been elected in the elections of 3 November 2002 if they had stood as independent candidates or if their party, DEHAP, had entered an electoral coalition with one of the large parties. 134. The Court notes that the applicants did not really contest the Government’s assertion that recourse to the above types of electoral strategy could have given them a real chance of being elected to Parliament. However, they emphasised the importance of political parties in representative democracies, arguing that neither independent candidatures nor the formation of alliances could take the place of independent political parties, which played a crucial role as fundamental elements of democracy. 135. The Court must therefore determine whether the alternatives referred to by the Government can be regarded as means to attenuate the threshold’s negative effects. 136. As regards the possibility of standing as an independent candidate, the Court, like the Chamber in paragraph 71 of its judgment, emphasises the irreplaceable contribution made by parties to political debate. They act as both an instrument which citizens can use to participate in electoral debate and a tribune through which they can express their support for various political programmes (see, mutatis mutandis, United Communist Party of Turkey and Others, cited above, § 25). They can thus be distinguished from other political actors such as independent candidates, who in general are locally based. Similarly, the Court notes that in Turkey independent candidates are subject to a number of unfavourable restrictions and conditions not applicable to political parties. They must deposit a guarantee, their names are not printed on the ballot slips supplied to frontier posts and large airports, and they are not able to broadcast electoral messages whereas all political parties have an express entitlement to air time on television and radio (see paragraphs 35 and 38 above). 137. The Court notes however that this method cannot be considered to be ineffective in practice. In the elections of 22 July 2007 in particular, the