THE GEORGIAN LABOUR PARTY v. GEORGIA JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINIONS 51 I start by saying that my analysis will be limited to the failure to secure a repeat election in the Khulo and Kobuleti electoral districts in the vote tally of 18 April 2004. I do not share the majority’s approach of examining the annulment of the election results in these districts by virtue of the CEC Ordinance of 2 April 2004 (see paragraphs 126-30 of the judgment). I consider that this aspect is outside the scope of our examination, the applicant having never raised it before our Court (see its complaints in paragraph 70 above) or the domestic courts, for a very simple and understandable reason: in the repeat election of 28 March 2004 the applicant party did not reach the 7% threshold necessary to enter Parliament. It was consequently very much interested in having that election repeated. Since the role of our Court is to examine the complaints raised by applicants, I do not see any convincing reason for examining ex officio an issue that has been thoroughly investigated and criticised by other international bodies. As to the failure of the respondent State to secure repeat elections in Khulo and Kobuleti, I would make the following observations. The Government recognised the failure in issue, but considered that it should be imputed solely to the Ajarian authorities (see paragraphs 112-13 and 131 of the judgment). The existence of tensions between the central and Ajarian authorities on the eve of the repeat parliamentary election of 18 March and 18 April 2004 were confirmed by the above-mentioned OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission Report (see paragraphs 50-53 of the judgment). That Report also made clear the difficulties encountered during the pre-election period in Ajaria, where only a late and very limited campaign could take place and no freedom of expression was enjoyed by the media. I have consequently no difficulty in accepting the respondent Government’s argument that the situation was difficult and dangerous and that the Ajarian authorities bear a great responsibility for what happened. However, the fact remains that no election took place in those two electoral districts. I observe that no derogation was notified by the respondent Government to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe under Article 15 of the Convention. This represents the only way for Contracting States validly to derogate from their obligations under the Convention and its Protocols, and is accompanied by a strict verification by the Council of Europe and the Convention bodies of the legality, necessity and proportionality of the adopted measure. In these circumstances, I need no other reason to conclude that there was a breach of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 in this respect also.