ŽDANOKA v. LATVIA JUDGMENT 44 Convention. The Chamber also considered that it was not required to rule on the applicant’s complaints under Article 10. B. The parties’ submissions 1. The applicant 139. The applicant acknowledged that the interference in question was “prescribed by law” within the meaning of Articles 10 § 2 and 11 § 2 of the Convention. However, she considered that the Government’s submissions concerning the legitimacy of the aims pursued by the impugned measure and their respect for the principle of proportionality were unsubstantiated. In particular, neither the Rekvényi judgment cited above, nor Article 17 of the Convention supported the Government’s position in the present case. 2. The Government 140. The Government maintained that the interference complied with the requirements of the second paragraphs of Articles 10 and 11 and that the impugned measure was “necessary in a democratic society”. C. The Court’s assessment 141. The Court considers in the circumstances of the case that Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 is the lex specialis, and no separate examination of the applicant’s complaints is warranted under Article 11. Nor can the Court find any argument that would require a separate examination of the applicant’s complaints about her inability to stand for election from the point of view of Article 10. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT 1. Dismisses, unanimously, the Government’s preliminary objection; 2. Holds, by thirteen votes to four, that there has been no violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1; 3. Holds, by thirteen votes to four, that it is not necessary to examine separately the applicant’s complaints under Article 11 of the Convention;