10 ALAJOS KISS v. HUNGARY JUDGMENT matter (see Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], no. 74025/01, ECHR 2005-IX). 33. Lastly, the applicant submitted that the impugned restriction could be replaced by a less restrictive alternative, such as allowing the courts to address this particular issue in guardianship proceedings or establishing a separate procedure with a view to assessing the fitness to vote of a person under guardianship. c. The third party 34. The intervener emphasised that the prohibition in question was not only at variance with Recommendation R(2006)5 (see paragraph 17 above), but was also not in compliance with Articles 12 and 29 of the CRPD (see paragraph 14 above), which was the first legally binding instrument in international law guaranteeing the comprehensive protection of the rights of persons with disabilities. This convention, signed by the European Community on 30 March 2007, represented the practice of European States which should be considered when interpreting Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. d. The applicant's comments on the third-party intervention 35. The applicant agreed with the intervener that the rights under the Convention of those with disabilities should be interpreted in the light of the CRPD (see paragraph 14 above). He considered himself mentally disabled and, as such, should benefit from the protection afforded by the CRPD. The restriction imposed on him is incompatible with the CRPD's spirit and text, in particular its Articles 12 and 29. 2. The Court's assessment a. General principles 36. The Court refers to its case-law in the matter, as outlined in the judgment of Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], (op.cit.): “57. [T]he Court has established that [Article 3 of Protocol No. 1] guarantees individual rights, including the right to vote and to stand for election (see MathieuMohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 113, pp. 2223, §§ 46-51). ... 58. The ... rights guaranteed under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 are crucial to establishing and maintaining the foundations of an effective and meaningful democracy governed by the rule of law ... 59. ... [T]he right to vote is not a privilege. In the twenty-first century, the presumption in a democratic State must be in favour of inclusion. ... Universal suffrage has become the basic principle (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt, cited above, p. 23, § 51, citing X v. Germany, no. 2728/66, Commission decision of 6 October 1967, Collection 25, pp. 38-41).