22 TĂNASE v. MOLDOVA JUDGMENT 1978, Series A no. 28); where a Law punishing homosexual acts was likely to be applied to a certain category of the population, to which the applicant belonged (see Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45); and, lastly, where the forced removal of aliens had already been decided on but not yet carried out and enforcement of the measure would have exposed the persons concerned to the risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 in the country of destination (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161) or would have infringed the right to respect for family life (see Beldjoudi v. France, 26 March 1992, Series A no. 234-A). The Government argued that States Parties had not agreed when ratifying the Convention that draft laws could be challenged before the Court. If such challenges were possible, where there was no possibility at domestic level to challenge a draft law applicants would be encouraged to come directly to the Court, breaching the principle of subsidiarity and leading to a large increase in the number of cases before the Court. 98. The Government further argued that a person with multiple nationalities was allowed to stand for election in Moldova and merely had to show, in order for his mandate to be approved by the Constitutional Court, that he had initiated a renunciation procedure in respect of nationalities other than Moldovan (see paragraph 79 above). There was no provision in the Electoral Code which allowed an MP’s mandate to be subsequently annulled on the ground that the renunciation procedure had never been completed. In the present case, once the applicant’s mandate was confirmed there was no way of annulling his mandate if he did not follow through with the renunciation of his Romanian nationality. (b) The applicant 99. The applicant acknowledged that his application to the Court was submitted before Law no. 273 was officially enacted. However, he argued that it had already been passed by Parliament (see paragraph 38 above) and that it was therefore inevitable that the Law would be signed by the President and would enter into force sooner or later. The Government were given notice of the application by the Court on 17 June 2008, by which time the contested Law was in force (see paragraph 44 above). 100. The applicant also pointed out that, following his election to Parliament, he was not permitted to take his seat until he had begun the procedure to renounce his Romanian citizenship (see paragraphs 60-61 and 66 above). Had he refused to initiate the procedure, he would have been unable to sit as an MP. 101. The applicant accordingly invited the Court to find that he was a victim of the contested legislation.