ALAJOS KISS v. HUNGARY JUDGMENT 13 individualised evaluation of their capacities and needs (cf. Shtukaturov v. Russia, no. 44009/05, § 95, 27 March 2008). 43. The applicant in the present case lost his right to vote as the result of the imposition of an automatic, blanket restriction on the franchise of those under partial guardianship. He may therefore claim to be a victim of the measure. The Court cannot speculate as to whether the applicant would still have been deprived of the right to vote even if a more limited restriction on the rights of the mentally disabled had been imposed in compliance with the requirements of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (see mutatis mutandis Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2), op.cit, §§ 48 to 52). 44. The Court further considers that the treatment as a single class of those with intellectual or mental disabilities is a questionable classification, and the curtailment of their rights must be subject to strict scrutiny. This approach is reflected in other instruments of international law, referred to above (paragraphs 14-17). The Court therefore concludes that an indiscriminate removal of voting rights, without an individualised judicial evaluation and solely based on a mental disability necessitating partial guardianship, cannot be considered compatible with the legitimate grounds for restricting the right to vote. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 45. Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” A. Damage 46. The applicant claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of nonpecuniary damage. 47. The Government contested this claim. 48. The Court considers that the applicant must have suffered some nonpecuniary damage and awards him, on an equitable basis, EUR 3,000 under this head. B. Costs and expenses 49. The applicant also claimed EUR 7,500 for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic authorities and the Court. This sum