Guide on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 – Right to free elections B. Importance of historical context 55. Although they have a common origin in the need to ensure both the independence of elected representatives and the freedom of choice of electors, the eligibility criteria vary in accordance with the historical and political factors specific to each State. The multiplicity of situations provided for in the constitutions and electoral legislation of numerous member States of the Council of Europe shows the diversity of possible approaches in this area. Therefore, for the purposes of applying Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, any electoral legislation must be assessed in the light of the political evolution of the country concerned (Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, 1987, § 54; Podkolzina v. Latvia, 2002, § 33; Ždanoka v. Latvia [GC], 2006, § 106). 56. In Ždanoka v. Latvia [GC], 2006, the applicant had been a member of a party which had attempted to bring about a coup d’état in 1991. Her candidature for elections was subsequently rejected a number of times on account of her activities in the party in question, continued after the attempted coup d’état. The Court took the view that the applicant’s former position in that party, coupled with her stance during the events of 1991, still warranted her exclusion from standing as a candidate to the national parliament. While such a measure might scarcely be considered acceptable, for example, in a country which had an established framework of democratic institutions going back many decades or centuries, it might nonetheless be considered acceptable in Latvia in view of the historical and political context which had led to its adoption and given the threat to the new democratic order. The Court nevertheless found that the Latvian parliament had a duty to keep the statutory restriction under constant review, with a view to bringing it to an early end. Such a conclusion was all the more justified in view of the greater stability which Latvia now enjoyed, inter alia, by reason of its full European integration. Hence, any failure by the Latvian legislature to take active steps in that connection might result in a different finding by the Court (§§ 132-135). 57. The Court subsequently emphasised once again the importance of the passage of time and the need to reassess legislation concerning lustration laws. In Ādamsons v. Latvia, 2008, the applicant, a former Prime Minister, had had his candidature refused on the ground that he had been a KGB “official”. The Court confirmed its findings on the country’s historical context. It added, however, that over the years a mere general suspicion about a group of individuals was no longer sufficient and that the authorities had to justify such a measure on the basis of additional arguments and evidence. The law applied in this case concerned former KGB “officials”. In view of the diversity of duties which had existed in that service, the scope was too broad. In those circumstances, it was no longer sufficient merely to find that the person concerned belonged to a particular group. The group in question having been defined too generally, any restriction on the electoral rights of its members should have followed an individualised approach, taking into account their actual conduct. The need for such a case-by-case approach had becoming increasingly important with the passage of time. The applicant had never been accused of being directly or indirectly involved in the misdeeds of the totalitarian regime, or in any act capable of showing opposition or hostility to the restoration of Latvia’s independence and democratic order. Moreover, he had only very belatedly been officially recognised as ineligible, after ten years of an outstanding military and political career in the restored Latvia. Only the most compelling reasons could justify the applicant’s ineligibility in those circumstances. In addition, the ten-year time-frame during which former KGB officials could be subjected to the restrictions provided for in other legislative instruments had been extended by ten additional years, without any reasons having been given by Parliament or the Government. The Court thus found that this prolongation had been manifestly arbitrary in respect of the applicant. C. Organisation of elections 58. The practical organisation of elections is a complex subject, requiring as it does the introduction and occasionally the amendment of elaborate legislation. When called upon to examine this subject, European Court of Human Rights 16/35 Last update: 30.04.2021