8 HAJILI v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT (see Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 18705/06, 8 April 2010). Furthermore, in respect of all those cases, the Government made an undertaking to take the same general measures as those specifically planned in the framework of the execution of the Namat Aliyev judgment. Accordingly, it appears that the inclusion of the specific references to the Namat Aliyev case was intended to limit the scope of the Government’s acknowledgment to the type of violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 found in that particular case. 28. However, the Court notes that, unlike the other seven cases which indeed raised issues similar to those in the Namat Aliyev case, the present application concerns a different kind of interference with the rights guaranteed by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Specifically, while the applicants in the Namat Aliyev case and the other seven cases referred to in the unilateral declaration complained about the ineffectiveness of the domestic electoral appeals’ system in connection with their complaints concerning election irregularities that had occurred before and during election day, the applicant in the present case complained about the allegedly arbitrary annulment of the results of the election in his electoral constituency. 29. Accordingly, having regard to the content and scope of the Government’s unilateral declaration and the context in which it was made, the Court considers that it does not contain a full admission of the specific alleged violation complained of in the present application. In such circumstances, the Court finds that the unilateral declaration failed to establish a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case. 30. Therefore, the Court refuses the Government’s request to strike the application out of its list of cases under Article 37 of the Convention and will accordingly pursue its examination of the admissibility and merits of the application. II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 TO THE CONVENTION 31. Relying on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant complained that the invalidation of election results in his electoral constituency had been arbitrary and unlawful and had infringed his electoral rights as the rightful winner of the election. He argued that the process of invalidation had lacked transparency and sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness, and that the decisions of the electoral commissions and domestic courts lacked any factual basis and were contrary to a number of requirements of the domestic electoral law. 32. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined only under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and that no separate