CAAMAÑO VALLE v. SPAIN JUDGMENT persons who are effectively unable to make a free and self-determined electoral choice. 76. Having regard to the reasons for the exclusion of the applicant’s daughter from the electoral process (see paragraphs 71-73 above), the Court considers that the contested measure does not thwart the free expression of the opinion of the people. (δ) Conclusion 77. In the light of the above, the Court considers that the decision taken by the domestic courts in the present case falls within the margin of appreciation of the States to regulate the right to vote. The disenfranchisement of the applicant’s daughter took place on the basis of her personal circumstances and by means of judgments that were delivered following a thorough analysis of her mental capacity. Contrary to the applicant’s assertion, M. was not deprived of the right to vote simply because she belonged to a certain group of persons. Her disenfranchisement cannot be considered to thwart the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature. 78. Having regard to the foregoing, the Court concludes that there has been no violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. (c) Alleged violation of Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 79. The Court has stated that, in spite of the difference in scope between Article 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention, the meaning of the notion of “discrimination” in Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 is intended to be identical to that in Article 14 (see paragraphs 18 and 19 of the Explanatory Report to Protocol No. 12). In applying the same term under Article 1 of Protocol No. 12, the Court therefore sees no reason to depart from the established interpretation of “discrimination”. It can be inferred that, in principle, the same standards developed by the Court in its case-law concerning the protection afforded by Article 14 are applicable to cases brought under Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 (see Napotnik v. Romania, no. 33139/13, § 69 and 70, 20 October 2020). 80. The Court reiterates that in the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention, Article 14 affords protection against different treatment, without objective and reasonable justification, of individuals in analogous, or relevantly similar, situations. In other words, the requirement to demonstrate an analogous position does not require that the comparator groups be identical. For the purposes of Article 14, a difference in treatment is discriminatory if it “has no objective and reasonable justification” – that is to say if it does not pursue a “legitimate aim” or if there is not a “reasonable relationship of proportionality” between 24