TĂNASE v. MOLDOVA JUDGMENT 33 143. The applicant reiterated his complaint that Law no. 273 did not satisfy the requirement of lawfulness because it was inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution and the ECN, which was ratified by Moldova in 1999 and was therefore part of the internal legal order (see paragraphs 71-73 above). 144. The applicant further alleged that Law no. 273 did not pursue a legitimate aim because the aim of ensuring loyalty towards Moldova was not the genuine motivation behind the enactment of the new Law. By way of example, Mrs Larisa Savga had been reappointed a member of government following the April 2009 elections, even though it was well known that she also held Romanian nationality. He also referred to unconfirmed press reports that the former President of Moldova, Mr Voronin, had held Russian citizenship while serving as President and received a pension from Russia. Relying upon conclusions of independent analysts, the applicant argued that holding dual nationality did not make Moldovan citizens less patriotic. 145. Finally, the applicant alleged that the Law was disproportionate, arbitrary and anti-democratic. He argued that the Convention had to be interpreted in a manner which rendered the rights contained therein practical and effective. To this end, it had to be read as a whole and in such a way as to promote internal consistency between its various provisions. Relevant rules and principles of international law had to be taken into account. Any emerging consensus among European States was a relevant factor for consideration by the Court (see Demir and Baykara, cited above, §§ 66-85). Applying these principles, the applicant concluded that the Court should not ignore the obligations assumed by the Government under the ECN when assessing the proportionality of the restrictions under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. The same applied to the recommendations and findings of other international organisations. The applicant also pointed to the fact that Moldova was the only Council of Europe member State which allowed multiple nationalities but banned those who were multiple nationals from standing for national elections. He argued that this demonstrated an absence of international acceptance for the approach of the Government. 146. The applicant further contended that it was disproportionate of the Government to restrict the right to sit as an MP to individuals with only Moldovan nationality in the light of their previous policy of encouraging Moldovan nationals to acquire other nationalities. The Government had admitted that a significant number of Moldovans had acquired a second nationality for social and economic reasons (see paragraph 39 above), a fact which, in the applicant’s view, rendered their new policy even more disproportionate. He emphasised that the Government had provided no example of any threat to the security or independence of Moldova from dual nationals. In the applicant’s view, the existence of sanctions for treason was an adequate means of preventing disloyalty. In any case, access to classified