42 THE GEORGIAN LABOUR PARTY v. GEORGIA JUDGMENT 134. The only evidence at the Court’s disposal which gives an account of the tensions between the central and Ajarian authorities is the 28 March 2004 EOM Report. This Report discloses instances of intimidation committed by the Ajarian authorities against representatives of opposition parties, especially against President Saakashvili’s supporters, preventing the latter from campaigning freely in the region. It further notes that the central authorities imposed, in reply, economic sanctions on the AAR and that some sort of agreement was reached between Mr A. Abashidze and President Saakashvili on the eve of the repeat parliamentary election of 28 March 2004. As to the subsequent developments in April 2004, which is more relevant to the issue at hand, the Report reads as follows: “On 12 April, the CEC temporary groups were dispatched to Ajaria but they rapidly encountered active resistance. On 13-14 April, the temporary groups were forced to leave the Ajarian territory by crowds of people.” 135. Acknowledging that the above-mentioned circumstances could hardly be conducive to a meaningful electoral process in Ajaria, the Court is nevertheless unable to conclude, on the sole basis of the scant information contained in the above Report, that the situation in the AAR at the time of the repeat polls of 18 April 2004 was distinguishable from the Court’s findings in the Assanidze case, to the extent that the AAR could be considered as not falling within the jurisdiction of the Georgian State. 136. In sum, the evidence adduced by the respondent Government has not satisfied the Court that the Georgian State could be absolved from its responsibility under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 with respect to the failure to conduct the polls in Khulo and Kobuleti on 18 April 2004. 137. The circumstances of the present case further disclose that, contrary to its positive obligations under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (see Hirst, cited above, § 57), the respondent State did not attempt any further action aimed at including the Khulo and Kobuleti voters in the countrywide election after the failure to open polling stations on 18 April 2004. On the contrary, the CEC suddenly decided to finalise the repeat parliamentary election results on the very same day. Such hastiness is inexplicable in the light of Article 64 § 1 of the EC, which apparently provided for a period of eighteen days for the finalisation of the election results (see paragraph 44 above). 138. Given the concept of implied limitations under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, the Court could, in principle, accept the Government’s argument that the finalisation of the election results on 18 April 2004 served the legitimate interest of securing the maintenance of the normal legislative process (see paragraph 114 above). However, the Government did not explain in what way the interim Parliament of 1999, which was recalled by the country’s leadership in November 2003 to serve until such time as a new parliament was elected (see paragraph 14 above), was dysfunctional and unable to serve for a further limited period beyond 18 April 2004.