Guidelines for Understanding, Adjudicating, and Resolving Disputes in Elections Nonetheless, there is no requirement that sovereign nations implement a specific form of election process.16 Instead, enforcement of the treaty is usually through domestic and international courts, which use the international standards to interpret the treaty obligations and ensure that a specific election process functions in compliance with the basic human right of political participation.17 For example, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has been particularly proactive in its interpretation of the expansiveness of political rights, construing the above-stated provision of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms to enshrine a fundamental principle for effective political democracy.18 The European Convention is accordingly of prime importance in the convention system. Generally, these international and regional systems help maintain these principles in a wide range of electoral systems. Universal principles are used to interpret the obligations that the system must meet, but they do not dictate the design of the system. Thus, while states enjoy a wide margin of choice in the implementation of electoral rights, the European Convention for the Protection of Human The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Protocol 1, Article 3 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. See also Yumak v. Turkey, Eur. Ct. H.R., App. No. 10226/03, Judgment of 8 July 2008, ¶ 11011. 17 The Georgian Labour Party v. Georgia, Eur. Ct. H.R., App. No. 9103/04, Judgment of 8 Oct. 2008, ¶ 104 (“[W]hilst recognizing the respondent State’s latitude in organizing its electoral administration, the Court must establish whether there were any specific acts of the electoral commissions which marred the applicant party’s right to stand in the repeat parliamentary election of 28 March 2004.”). 18 Mathieu-Mohin v. Belgium, Eur. Ct. H.R., Series A no. 113, Judgment of 2 March 1987, ¶ 47. The Court went far beyond the case and recognized that the “free elections” article protects the citizen’s right to vote and stand for election and also that an indivIdual has the right to complaint. Jurij Toplak, European Parliament Elections and the Uniform Election Procedure 6 (International Association of Constitutional Law, Paper for VIIth World Congress, June 11-15, 2007), available at http://www.enelsyn.gr/papers/w3/Paper percent20by percent20Jurij percent20Toplak.pdf. In Krasnov v. Russia, the Court reaffirmed that Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 implicitly embraces the right to stand for election. Krasnov v. Russia, Eur. Ct. H.R., App. Nos. 17864/04 and 21396/04, Judgment of 19 July 2007, ¶ 40. 16 14