24 NAMAT ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 100, ECHR 1999-III; and Lykourezos v. Greece, no. 33554/03, § 56, ECHR 2006-VIII). In the case of Podkolzina v. Latvia, the Court stated that the right to stand as a candidate in an election, which is guaranteed by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 and is inherent in the concept of a truly democratic regime, would only be illusory if one could be arbitrarily deprived of it at any moment. Consequently, while it is true that States have a wide margin of appreciation when establishing eligibility conditions in the abstract, the principle that rights must be effective requires that the eligibility procedure contain sufficient safeguards to prevent arbitrary decisions (see Podkolzina v. Latvia, no. 46726/99, § 35, ECHR 2002-II). Although originally stated in connection with the conditions on eligibility to stand for election, the principle requiring prevention of arbitrariness is equally relevant in other situations where the effectiveness of individual electoral rights is at stake (see, mutatis mutandis, Kovach v. Ukraine, no. 39424/02, § 55, ECHR 2008-...). 73. Lastly, the Court has also had an occasion to emphasise that it is important for the authorities in charge of electoral administration to function in a transparent manner and to maintain impartiality and independence from political manipulation (see The Georgian Labour Party v. Georgia, no. 9103/04, § 101, 8 July 2008). 74. In the present case, the Court will first have regard to the Government's argument that the difference in the official vote totals received by Z.O. and the applicant was so significant that, even if the applicant's allegations concerning some election irregularities in various polling stations were true, it would not affect the ultimate result of the election. The Court cannot accept this argument. In order to arrive at the conclusion proposed by the Government, it is first necessary to separately assess the seriousness and magnitude of the alleged election irregularity prior to determining its effect on the overall outcome of the election. However, in the present case, the question whether this has been done in a diligent manner is a major point of contention between the parties in the context of the present complaint and, therefore, cannot escape the Court's review. 75. Moreover, in any event, what is at stake in the present case is not the applicant's right to win the election in his constituency, but his right to stand freely and effectively for it (compare The Georgian Labour Party, cited above, § 121). The applicant was entitled under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to stand for election in fair and democratic conditions, regardless of whether ultimately he won or lost. In the present case, Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 requires the Court not to ascertain merely that the election outcome as such was not prejudiced, but to verify that the applicant's individual right to stand for election was not deprived of its effectiveness and that its essence had not