HAJILI v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT 15 appearance of arbitrariness of the decision on the annulment of the election (compare Kerimova, cited above, §§ 49-51). 56. Lastly, the Court notes that, despite the fact that the applicant had repeatedly raised all of the above points in his appeals to the domestic courts, the domestic courts failed to adequately address these issues and reiterated the CEC’s findings. They refused to examine any primary evidence, which mostly consisted of the illegally altered originals of the PEC records of election results, and failed to review the compliance of the CEC decision with the requirements of the electoral law. As such, the manner of examination of the applicant’s election-related appeals was ineffective. 57. For the above reasons, Court concludes that the decision on the annulment of the election results in the applicant’s electoral constituency was arbitrary, as it lacked any relevant and sufficient reasons and was in apparent breach of the procedures established by the domestic electoral law (see paragraph 55 above). This decision arbitrarily prevented the applicant from exercising effectively his right to stand for election and as such ran counter to the concern to maintain the integrity and effectiveness of an electoral procedure aimed at identifying the will of the people through universal suffrage. 58. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION 59. In conjunction with the above complaint, the applicant complained that he had been arbitrarily deprived of his seat in the National Assembly owing to his affiliation with the political opposition. He relied on Article 14, which provides as follows: “The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.” 60. The Court notes that this complaint is linked to the one examined above and must therefore likewise be declared admissible. 61. However, having regard to its above finding in relation to Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether in this case there has been a violation of Article 14.