THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF RUSSIA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 23 at first instance and on appeal. The applicants also called into question the impartiality of one of the judges of the Supreme Court who had made a statement showing his ill-disposition towards the applicants and refused to grant applications lodged by the applicants for discovery of evidence. (d) Compliance with the six-month rule 78. Lastly, the applicants claimed that the six-month period should be calculated from 7 February 2005, when the Supreme Court, sitting as a court of appeal, delivered its judgment in the case concerning the invalidation of the results of the elections. 3. The Court’s assessment 79. The Court reiterates that free elections are inconceivable without the free circulation of political opinions and information (see, for example, United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey, 30 January 1998, § 44, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I). Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 will not attain its goal (which is to establish and maintain the foundations of an effective and meaningful democracy governed by the rule of law – see Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], no. 74025/01, § 58, ECHR 2005-IX) if candidates cannot disseminate their ideas during the electoral campaign. In Yumak and Sadak v. Turkey [GC] (no. 10226/03, § 106, 8 July 2008) the Court emphasised the role of the State as “ultimate guarantor of pluralism” and stated that in performing that role the State is under an obligation to adopt positive measures to “organise” democratic elections “under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature”. Therefore, as a matter of principle the Court is competent to examine complaints about the allegedly unequal media coverage of elections under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The Government’s plea of incompatibility ratione materiae should therefore be dismissed. 80. Furthermore, the Court notes the Government’s submission that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, and, in the alternative, to comply with the six-month rule. The applicants, in turn, complained that they had not had effective domestic remedies by which to protest against the unequal media coverage of the elections, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention. The Court observes that in the present case it is impossible to address the question of compatibility of the applicants’ complaints with the admissibility criteria raised by the Government under Article 35 § 1 without addressing the substance of their complaints under Article 13. It follows that this objection of the Government should be joined to the merits. Similarly, the Court considers that the Government’s objection concerning the victim status of certain applicants should be examined together with the merits of the present case.