30 THE GEORGIAN LABOUR PARTY v. GEORGIA JUDGMENT this regard, is particularly struck by the fact that the CEC was unable to create a central list of voters, which caused a complete lack of uniformity in the type of lists used by the PECs in the course of that parliamentary election. 86. In contrast, as acknowledged by the OSCE/ODHIR Election Observation Mission Report on the Repeat Parliamentary Election of 28 March 2004 (“the 28 March 2004 EOM Report”; see paragraphs 50 and 51 above), the situation with respect to voter lists was somewhat improved after the adoption of the impugned Decree no. 30/2004 of 27 February 2004, which introduced a new, “active” system of voter registration. As a result of the requirement for voters to attend electoral precincts a number of times, in order to register and then to double-check their registration, “many errors were eliminated” and the CEC, moreover, was able to consolidate “handwritten voter lists into a single computerised database”. The impugned Decree also allowed voters to register on election day, which, as noted by the 28 March 2004 EOM Report, enfranchised an additional 145,000 voters. Furthermore, the Court notes that, by amending the system for the registration of voters, the CEC directly enforced the recommendations of various international election observers, who subsequently commended the authorities for their efforts to improve, computerise and consolidate the electoral rolls (see paragraphs 46, 50 and 51 above). 87. Admittedly, the 28 March 2004 EOM Report also disclosed several shortcomings in the new system for the registration of voters (see paragraph 51 above). However, it would have been an excessive and impracticable burden to expect from the authorities an ideal solution to the problem of chaotic electoral rolls given the short time frame between 25 November 2003, when the results of the scheduled parliamentary election were annulled, and 28 March 2004, the date of the repeat election. In the Court’s view, it is more important that the authorities, taking account of the reasons for the failure of the scheduled election, acknowledged the existence of the problem of electoral rolls and, as disclosed by the 28 March 2004 EOM Report, spared no effort in tackling it so that the repeat election could be fairer. 88. Referring to the applicant party’s argument that the sudden change in the registration system was unexpected for voters, the Court considers that, as a matter of policy, it would indeed be preferable to maintain the stability of electoral law (see also the Venice Commission’s recommendation in this respect, paragraph 47 above). Fundamental electoral rules, such as those concerning voter registration, should not normally be amended too often and especially on the eve of an election, otherwise the State risks undermining respect for and confidence in the existence of the guarantees of a free election. 89. However, it is to be recalled that, for the purposes of applying Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, any electoral legislation must be assessed in the