30 TĂNASE v. MOLDOVA JUDGMENT rights guaranteed in the Convention. They referred to the Court’s consistent case-law to the effect that the Convention could not be interpreted in a vacuum and that regard should be had to other relevant instruments of international law (for example, Emonet and Others v. Switzerland, no. 39051/03, § 65, 13 December 2007, and Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, § 55, ECHR 2001-XI). Thus, in the view of the Romanian Government, the Chamber was correct to refer to engagements assumed by Moldova at European level as relevant to its analysis of the restrictions imposed by Law no. 273. In this regard, the Romanian Government noted that Moldova had ratified the ECN without lodging reservations and that the obligation on States to execute in good faith international treaties to which they were party was a fundamental principle of international law. 2. The Court’s assessment 131. The Court observes that the Government’s objection ratione materiae was not previously raised at the admissibility stage and is therefore a new objection. However, it notes that an objection of incompatibility ratione materiae is an objection which goes to the Court’s jurisdiction and points out that the Court is obliged to examine whether it has jurisdiction at every stage of the proceedings. As a result, the Government cannot be considered as being estopped from raising such an objection at this stage (see, mutatis mutandis, Blečić, cited above, § 67). 132. Like the parties, the Court considers that the objection is closely linked to the merits of the applicant’s complaint. It will therefore deal with the objection in its examination of the merits below. D. Conclusion 133. The application cannot be rejected as incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention for failure to exhaust domestic remedies or for lack of victim status. The Court therefore dismisses the respondent Government’s preliminary objections, with the exception of its objection of incompatibility ratione materiae, which is joined to the merits. II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 A. The Chamber’s conclusions 134. The Chamber accepted that the impugned provisions were formulated in clear terms and that they pursued the legitimate aim of