40 ŽDANOKA v. LATVIA JUDGMENT determined in detail by the legislature, leaving the courts of ordinary jurisdiction only with the task of verifying whether a particular individual belongs to the category or group covered by the statutory measure in issue. This is particularly so in matters relating to Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. The Court’s task is essentially to evaluate whether the measure defined by Parliament is proportionate from the standpoint of this provision, and not to find fault with the measure simply on the ground that the domestic courts were not empowered to “fully individualise” the application of the measure in the light of an individual’s specific situation and circumstances (see paragraphs 112-15 above). 126. It is to be observed in this respect that section 5(6) of the 1995 Act is worded in relatively narrow terms. The very fact that the restriction relates only to those having “actively participated” in CPL activities at the material time confirms that the legislature clearly distinguished between the various forms of involvement in the party of its former members, as correctly pointed out in the Constitutional Court’s decision of 30 August 2000. 127. Further, the Act conferred on individuals affected by the provisions of section 5(6) the right to have determined by a court the issue of whether they belonged to the category defined by the legislature, that is to say whether they could be deemed to have been “active participants”. It is clear that this was not an illusory right (see paragraph 45 above). The applicant does not allege that the proceedings in her case were not adversarial. The Court also recalls that it has accepted the domestic courts’ findings that the applicant was more than a formal member of the CPL, that she had participated in the party’s activities after the critical date of 13 January 1991, and that the CPL itself had taken an active role in the events of 1991, including the abortive coup (see paragraphs 23 and 37-44 above). The procedures applied in the applicant’s case, or indeed the conclusions reached by the domestic courts in applying the relevant domestic legislation, could not be considered arbitrary (see, by contrast, the Podkolzina and Melnychenko cases referred to in paragraphs 107-08 above). 128. In view of the above considerations, the Court considers that the impugned legislation was clear and precise as to the definition of the category of persons affected by it, and it was also sufficiently flexible to allow the domestic courts to examine whether or not a particular person belonged to that category. In the present case, a sufficient degree of individualisation as required by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 was thus effected by the Latvian parliament in adopting section 5(6) of the 1995 Act, and thereafter by the domestic courts in establishing that the impugned statutory measure applied to the applicant. There was no obligation under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 for the Latvian parliament to delegate more extensive jurisdiction to the Latvian courts to “fully individualise” the applicant’s situation so as to enable them to establish as a fact whether or