CH/02/12470 “The actions complained of were carried out by the High Representative in the performance of his functions under the General Framework Agreement, as interpreted by the Bonn Peace Implementation Conference. There is no provision for any intervention by the respondent Party (or by any of the other Parties to the General Framework Agreement) in those actions. In addition, the High Representative cannot be said to be acting as, or on behalf of, the State or the Entities when acting in pursuance of his powers. As a result, the actions giving rise to the present application cannot be considered to be within the scope of responsibility of the respondent Party.” (^avi}, paragraph 19) 120. The Chamber notes that it already has declared the applicant’s complaints relating to his expulsion from the Federation of BiH military inadmissible. For the purposes of the right protected by Article 3 of the First Protocol to the Convention it is relevant that the applicant was barred from running for elections by the Election Commission and the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in application of domestic law. The fact that Article 19.9A of the Election Law excludes from the elections any “military officer or former military officer who has been removed from service pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Instructions to the Parties issued by COMSFOR under Article VI Paragraph 5 of Annex 1A to the General Framework Agreement for Peace”, and thereby refers to a decision by the COMSFOR which is beyond the responsibility of the Parties to the Agreement, is not sufficient to exclude the responsibility of Bosnia and Herzegovina for the alleged violation of Article 3 of the First Protocol to the Convention. The conduct involving the responsibility of the respondent Party is not the removal from service, but the fact that this removal from service is taken as the basis for the exclusion from the right to run for office. Any violations arising from the implementation of Article 19.9A of the Election Law fall within the scope of responsibility of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Therefore, this part of the application is admissible as against Bosnia and Herzegovina. 4. Conclusion as to admissibility 121. The Chamber finds that the application is admissible insofar as the applicant complains of his inability to run for elections, which is a right protected under Article 3 of the First Protocol to the Convention and which invokes the responsibility of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Chamber finds the remainder of the claims inadmissible. B. Merits 122. Under Article XI of the Agreement, the Chamber must address the question whether the facts established above disclose a breach by the respondent Party of its obligations under the Agreement. Article I of the Agreement provides that the Parties shall secure to all persons within their jurisdiction the highest level of internationally recognised human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the rights and freedoms provided in the Convention and the other international agreements listed in the Appendix to the Agreement. 1. Article 3 of the First Protocol to the Convention 123. The applicant alleges a violation of his right to run for elections, as protected by Article 3 of the First Protocol to the Convention. Article 3 of the First Protocol to the Convention provides as follows: “The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.” 124. In one of the first cases before the European Court regarding a violation of Article 3 of the First Protocol to the Convention, Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium (Eur. Court HR, judgement of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 113) the European Court held that the rights contained therein are not absolute; and that the states have a wide margin of appreciation in making the right to vote and the right to stand for elections subject to conditions, “as long as the conditions do not curtail the right in 20