CDL-AD(2020)025 - 50 - he had not submitted duly certified copies of the relevant observers’ affidavits and that he had not attached to his cassation appeal documentary proof that he had indeed applied to the CEC. The Court noted that it was not its task to assess whether, from the standpoint of the domestic law, the domestic courts had been correct to apply so strictly the civil procedure rules on admissibility of written evidence to a case giving rise to election-related issues which normally fell within the realm of public law. In the circumstances of the present case, however, the Court found that such a rigid and overly formalistic approach was not justified under the Convention. (h) Prevention of undue delays The timely registration of candidates is crucial in order for them to be known to voters and to be able to convey their political message during the electoral campaign period in an effort to gain votes and get elected. The free choice of the electorate depends on, inter alia, having information concerning all eligible candidates, and receiving it in a timely manner in order to form an opinion and express it on election day. Accordingly, major delays in resolution of disputes regarding registration of candidates may seriously undermine their electoral campaigns and even curtail their individual electoral rights to such an extent as to significantly impair their effectiveness.202 Specific case: In Abdalov and Others v. Azerbaijan (nos. 28508/11, 37602/11 and 43776/11, 11 July 2019) the applicants complained that, owing to arbitrary decisions initially refusing to register them as candidates and the subsequent delayed registrations following a number of appeals, they had been unable to participate in the parliamentary elections under equal conditions vis-à-vis other candidates, because they had been left with a very short time to conduct their respective electoral campaigns. The first applicant had only one full day to campaign, the second applicant had only three full days, and the third applicant had practically no time left for campaigning. The domestic law provided for a maximum three-day period for electoral appeals and a maximum three-day period for the electoral commissions and courts to examine the appeals. At the electoral commission level, the three-day period for examination could be extended for an indefinite duration. With three levels of appeal against an electoral commission decision, the electoral appeal proceedings in cases concerning refusals to register candidates could theoretically take up to eighteen days (and sometimes longer). Since the decision on refusal to register could be delivered as late as on the eve of the official start of the electoral campaign period, the examination of appeals against such decision could take place after the start of the campaign period, as happened in the applicants’ cases. Thus, under this system, a degree of overlap was possible between the period for examination of appeals against refusals to register and the electoral campaign period (fixed at twenty-two days). Consequently, given the possibility of overlap between the time periods allocated for those stages of the electoral process and the reduced length of the electoral campaign period, it was of utmost importance to conduct the appeal proceedings in a timely manner in order to ensure that, should an appellant be successful, he or she would have sufficient time before election day to conduct his or her campaign. The Court noted that the proceedings had been subject to a number of delays attributable to the electoral commissions and the courts, which on several occasions had delivered their respective decisions in a belated manner, sometimes in breach of the three-day limit prescribed by law. The delays in the applicants’ registrations had not been minor. The 202 See Abdalov and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 28508/11, 37602/11 and 43776/11, §§ 89-104, 11 July 2019.