HAJILI v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT 7 domestic legislation. Separate workshop on criminal aspects of the complaints will be held for the prosecutors. ... The Government consider that the supervision by the Committee of Ministers of the execution of Court judgments concerning the Republic of Azerbaijan in these and similar cases is an appropriate mechanism for ensuring that improvements will be made in this context. To this end, necessary cooperation in this process will continue to take place. In the light of the above, the Government would suggest that the circumstances of the present cases allow the Court to reach the conclusion that there exists ‘any other reason’, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, justifying to discontinue the examination of the application, and that, moreover, there are no reasons of a general character, as defined in Article 37 § 1 in fine, which would require the further examination of the cases by virtue of that provision. Accordingly, the Government invite the Court to strike the applications out of its list of cases.” 23. In a group letter of 9 November 2010, the applicants in the above applications, including the applicant in the present case, argued that the terms of the unilateral declaration were unsatisfactory. 24. The Court has accepted the terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration in respect of seven out of the eight cases mentioned in the above-cited unilateral declaration and decided to strike those cases out of the list in respect of the complaints concerning the breaches of the respective applicants’ electoral rights (see Gambar and Others (dec.), nos. 4741/06, 19552/06, 22457/06, 22654/06, 24506/06, 36105/06 and 40318/06, 9 December 2010). 25. However, the Court cannot reach the same conclusion in respect of the present case for the following reasons. 26. The Court reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued. To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment, which elaborates on a number of relevant factors to be assessed in this respect (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary issue) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 74-77, ECHR 2003-VI). The list of such relevant factors is not intended to be exhaustive and it includes such factors as the question of whether in their unilateral declaration the respondent Government have made any admissions in relation to the alleged violations of the Convention and, if so, the scope of such admissions and the manner in which they intend to provide redress to the applicant (ibid., § 76). 27. Turning to the present case, the Court notes that the Government acknowledged the violation of the rights under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 of the eight applicants (including the applicant in the present case) owing to the alleged similarity of all these cases to the Namat Aliyev judgment