THE GEORGIAN LABOUR PARTY v. GEORGIA JUDGMENT 43 139. Against such vague arguments from the Government, the Court, taking into account the importance of the principle of universal suffrage, cannot accept the legitimate interest of having a new parliament elected “at a reasonable interval” as a sufficient justification for the respondent State’s inability or unwillingness to undertake further reasonable measures for the purpose of enfranchising 60,000 Ajarian voters after the failure to open the polling stations on 18 April 2004. 140. Finally, it should be noted that, following the above-mentioned failure, the CEC did not issue any act annulling the Ordinance of 2 April 2004 and officially cancelling the repeat election in the Khulo and Kobuleti districts (see also paragraph 53 above). In the Court’s view, Article 105 § 3 of the EC could not be substituted for the CEC’s formal decision in this regard. Had it been truly impossible to enforce the Ordinance of 2 April 2004, it would have been more compatible with the fundamental principles of the rule of law for the CEC to cancel the scheduled polls in the Khulo and Kobuleti districts in the form of a clear-cut, formal decision, by adducing relevant and sufficient justification for the disfranchisement of some 60,000 voters. (d) Conclusion 141. In the light of the above considerations, the Court concludes that the CEC’s decision of 2 April 2004 to annul the election results in the Khulo and Kobuleti electoral districts was not made in a transparent and consistent manner. The CEC did not adduce relevant and sufficient reasons for its decision, nor did it provide adequate procedural safeguards against an abuse of power. Furthermore, without resorting to additional measures aimed at organising elections in the Khulo and Kobuleti districts after 18 April 2004, the CEC took a hasty decision to terminate the countrywide election without any valid justification. The exclusion of those two districts from the general election process was void of a number of rule of law requisites and resulted in a de facto disfranchisement of a significant section of the population (see, mutatis mutandis, Matthews v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24833/94, §§ 64-65, ECHR 1999-I). 142. There has accordingly been a violation of the applicant party’s right to stand for election under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the de facto disfranchisement of the Khulo and Kobuleti voters. II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION 143. Relying on Article 14 of the Convention, the applicant party alleged that, as a result of the unfair electoral processes complained of under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, it had been unable to enter Parliament and, thus, had been discriminated against on the basis of its political opinion. Article 14 of the Convention reads as follows: