CH/02/12470 D. Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) 80. In its amicus curiae brief, OSCE discusses two issues. Firstly, whether the implementation of Article 19.9A of the Election Law meets the requirements of Article 3 of the First Protocol to the Convention, as well as Article 25 of the ICCPR in connection with Article II(2)b of the Agreement. Secondly, the OSCE comments on whether it is significant for the purpose of Article 19.9A of the Election Law, that the applicant was removed from his position by the COMSFOR and not merely approval was given by the COMSFOR. 81. As to the first issue, OSCE states that the right to vote and the right to stand for election are not absolute and States have a wide margin of appreciation as long as “there is no disproportionate limitation as would undermine the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.” Most importantly, to determine the proportionality, the political evolution of the state concerned must be taken in account and the fact that this margin is greater in systems that are incomplete or provisional. In reviewing a possible violation of Article 3 of the First Protocol to the Convention, the OSCE assesses the requirements that the restrictions must pursue a legitimate aim and that the means employed are not disproportionate. OSCE acknowledges the seriousness of possible obstructions of the implementation of the General Framework Agreement and notes that “the ban on the standing for election for individuals found to have obstructed the GFAP is a legitimate aim of the BiH government”. As to the proportionality requirement, the OSCE states that “since Article 19.9A applies only to individuals already found to have obstructed implementation of the GFAP and its effect is temporary in nature, it cannot be viewed as a disproportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim”. OSCE regards the part of the claim referring to Article 25 of the ICCPR as inadmissible, as the claim of discrimination has not been substantiated. 82. As to the second issue, OSCE states that the applicant’s case does not qualify under Article 19.9A of the Election Law as the COMSFOR merely acquiesced to the dismissal. OSCE’s opinion is that Article 19.9A of the Election Law only applies when an individual was removed in accordance with Chapter 14 of the ITP and only the COMSFOR is authorized to act under this Chapter. 83. However, at the public hearing, OSCE expressed its opinion that, while the ITP may not provide the most clear-cut guidelines as to the procedure by which officers are removed by the COMSFOR, looking at the totality of the circumstances one can surmise that the applicant’s removal was in accordance with the ITP, and therefore caught by Article 19.9A of the Election Law. E. Office of the High Representative (OHR) 84. OHR in its amicus curiae submission, dated 4 July 2003, notes in the introduction that, “decisions of all institutions enumerated in Article 19.9A of the Election Law, taken within their respective mandate, are final and binding for the authorities of BiH”. 85. OHR firstly gives its opinion on the extent to which the implementation of the provisions of Article 19.9A of the Election Law meets the requirements of Article 3 of the First Protocol to the Convention. Referring to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the “European Court”), OHR states that the rights to vote and to stand for election are important rights, but not absolute and the article allows for implied limitations. OHR asserts that Article 19.9A of the Election Law pursues a legitimate aim, as the “rational behind the article is to ban persons who had personally obstructed the implementation of the GFAP and endangered the establishment of a democratic society.” As to the proportionality of the measures employed, OHR states that, “all decisions taken by the international bodies listed under Article 19.9A cannot be considered to be within the scope of responsibility of the respondent Party. OHR notes that Article 19.9A is limited in two ways. Firstly, once the High Representative’s mandate terminates, the exclusion employed by the Article would be lifted by force of this Law and, secondly, the High Representative, within his mandate and using Bonn powers entrusted to him, has discretion to lift this ban.” 86. It follows, according to OHR, that Bosnia and Herzegovina cannot be found in breach of Article 3 of the First Protocol to the Convention. 14