WALLIS AJ entitled to be registered in the wards they were contesting, coupled with the problems with the voters’ roll, meant that the conduct of these by-elections did not measure up to the constitutional standard because they were not free and fair. The complaint does not relate so much to the outcome of the by-elections as to the manner in which they were held, although, no doubt, as with all unsuccessful candidates, the applicants harbour a lingering belief that if the by-elections had been conducted without these deficiencies the result would have been different. As was said by the First Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in Aliyev v Azerbaijan: “The applicant was entitled . . . to stand for election in fair and democratic conditions, regardless of whether ultimately he won or lost.” 66 [85] The applicants complain that, by virtue of the irregularities that affected the electoral process, these seven by-elections were not fairly conducted. Their ability to participate fully and effectively in the by-elections was hampered by the failure of the IEC to fulfil its obligations in regard to the registration of voters, and the content and timing of the production and provision of the relevant segments of the voters’ roll. The focus must be on the impact that this had on their exercise of the right to stand for public office. It is not on whether they would have won or lost had the arrangements for the by-elections been different and not suffered from the flaws of which they complain, but on whether they were seriously hampered in their participation in the electoral process. [86] It must be stressed that the judgement whether an election was free and fair has to be made in the specific context of the Constitution. In certain instances it may be appropriate to be guided by identifiable international norms, where these exist. But the constitutional requirement is that elections must be free and fair. This is a single requirement,67 not a conjunction of two separate and disparate elements. The expression highlights both the freedom to participate in the electoral process and the 66 Case of Namat Aliyev v Azerbaijan (Application no 18705/06) at para 75. 67 Technically called a hendiadys (“one through two”). 44