ŽDANOKA v. LATVIA JUDGMENT 35 and prosecutor, on the ground of their former KGB employment was not considered to amount to an interference with their rights under Article 10 of the Convention (ibid., §§ 67-73). 112. It is also relevant in this context to note that Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, or indeed other Convention provisions, do not prevent, in principle, Contracting States from introducing general policy schemes by way of legislative measures whereby a certain category or group of individuals is treated differently from others, provided that the interference with the rights of the statutory category or group as a whole can be justified under the Convention (see, in the context of a legislative ban on a police officer from engaging in political activities, examined by the Court under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, Rekvényi, cited above, §§ 34-50 and 58-62). 113. In Rekvényi, no violation of the Convention was found in that the domestic legislation in issue was judged to be sufficiently clear and precise as to the definition of the categories of persons affected (members of the armed forces, police and security services) and as to the scope of the application of the impugned statutory restriction, the statute’s underlying purpose of excluding the whole group from political activities being compatible with the proportionality requirements under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. It was thus immaterial for the Court’s assessment of the compatibility of the impugned measures with the Convention whether or not the applicant in that case could have requested the domestic courts to scrutinise whether his own political involvement represented a possible danger to the democratic order (ibid.). Similarly, in Podkolzina and Melnychenko, both cited above, the Court did not state that the Convention required that the domestic courts be empowered to review matters such as the proportionality of the statutory obligations imposed on those applicants to comply with, respectively, language and residence requirements in order to exercise their rights to stand as candidates for election, given that those statutory requirements were in themselves perfectly acceptable from the Convention point of view. 114. It follows from the above analysis that, as long as the statutory distinction itself is proportionate and not discriminatory as regards the whole category or group specified in the legislation, the task of the domestic courts may be limited to establishing whether a particular individual belongs to the impugned statutory category or group. The requirement for “individualisation”, that is the necessity of the supervision by the domestic judicial authorities of the proportionality of the impugned statutory restriction in view of the specific features of each and every case, is not a precondition of the measure’s compatibility with the Convention.