34 TĂNASE v. MOLDOVA JUDGMENT information was dependent upon security clearance which was only granted following a thorough investigation by the secret services. 147. Finally, the applicant criticised the adoption of the new legislation less than one year before the 5 April 2009 elections. He argued that the proportionality of the Law should be assessed in the general context of electoral reform in Moldova, including the raising of the threshold for gaining seats in Parliament from 4% to 6% and the prohibition of electoral blocs (see paragraph 37 above). The election results of 5 April 2009 demonstrated that the new Law mainly affected the opposition, as 21 of its 41 members were concerned (see paragraph 59 above). The example of Mrs Savga (see paragraph 144 above) was evidence of the arbitrary application of the new Law. In the applicant’s submission, it was relevant for the Court whether the effect of rules governing elections excluded a group of persons from participating in the political life of a country, whether discrepancies created by a particular electoral system could be considered arbitrary or abusive and whether the system tended to favour one political party over another (referring to, inter alia, Aziz v. Cyprus, no. 69949/01, § 28, ECHR 2004-V, and Yumak and Sadak, cited above, § 121). The applicant contended that the real aim behind the electoral reform was to diminish the electoral prospects of the opposition party and that Law no. 273 was therefore arbitrary and abusive. 3. The Romanian Government 148. The Romanian Government contested the legality of Law no. 273. They argued that the Law was not foreseeable given the fact that it was not uniformly applied and that different interpretations could be given to its provisions. 149. They further argued that a minimum European standard emerged from an examination of the legislation applicable in the different member States and that this standard did not impose a condition of single citizenship for election to Parliament. Unlike the other Council of Europe member States which banned dual nationals from sitting as MPs, Moldova had chosen to assume all of the obligations arising under the ECN. The fact that Moldova had chosen to change its position on the possibility of acquiring dual nationality did not absolve it from complying with its obligations under the ECN. The Romanian Government emphasised that Article 4 of the Moldovan Constitution provided that in the event of a disagreement between international human rights conventions to which Moldova was a party and domestic legislation, the international measures prevailed (see paragraph 71 above). Furthermore, section 25 of the Law on citizenship of the Republic of Moldova provided that citizens of Moldova who also held citizenship of another State had the same rights and obligations as other Moldovan citizens (see paragraph 75 above).