ŽDANOKA v. LATVIA JUDGMENT 19 electoral rights for having acted against the re-established democratic order after 13 January 1991 ... Accordingly, Parliament limited the restrictions to the degree of each individual’s personal responsibility [individuālās atbildības pakāpe] in carrying out those organisations’ objectives and programmes, and the restriction on the right to be elected to Parliament or to a municipal council ... is related to the specific individual’s activities in the respective ... associations. In itself, formal membership of the above-mentioned organisations cannot serve as a basis for preventing an individual from standing as candidate or being elected to Parliament ... Consequently, the impugned provisions are directed only against those who attempted, subsequent to 13 January 1991 and in the presence of the army of occupation, to re-establish the former regime through active participation [ar aktīvu darbību]; on the other hand, they do not affect persons who have differing political convictions (opinions). The tendency of certain courts to concentrate solely on the finding of the fact of formal membership and not to evaluate the person’s behaviour is inconsistent with the objectives sought by Parliament in enacting the provision in issue ... 6. ... Given that those organisations’ objectives were linked to the overthrow of the existing State regime [pastāvošās valsts iekārtas graušana], they were essentially unconstitutional ... Consequently, the aim of the restrictions on passive electoral rights is to protect the democratic State order, national security and territorial integrity of Latvia. The impugned provisions are not directed against pluralism of ideas in Latvia or against a person’s political opinions, but against those who, through their active participation, have attempted to overthrow the democratic State order ... The exercise of human rights may not be directed against democracy as such ... The substance and effectiveness of law is demonstrated in its ethical nature [ētiskums]. A democratic society has a legitimate interest in requiring loyalty to democracy from its political representatives. In establishing restrictions, the candidates’ honour and reputation is not challenged, in the sense of personal legal benefit [personisks tiesisks labums]; what is challenged is the worthiness of the persons in question to represent the people in Parliament or in the relevant municipal council. These restrictions concern persons who were permanent agents of the occupying power’s repressive regime, or who, after 13 January 1991, participated in the organisations mentioned in the impugned provisions and actively fought against the re-established Latvian Constitution and State ... The argument ... that democratic State order must be protected against individuals who are not ethically qualified to become representatives of a democratic State at political or administrative level ... is well-founded ... ... The removal from the list of a candidate who was involved in the abovementioned organisations is not an arbitrary administrative decision; it is based on an individual judgment by a court. In accordance with the law, evaluation of individual responsibility comes under the jurisdiction of the courts ...