TĂNASE v. MOLDOVA JUDGMENT 35 150. The Romanian Government also pointed out that, some seventeen years after Moldova gained its independence, the respondent Government asserted a risk to that independence without providing any proof. They emphasised that no causal link had been established between dual nationality and the alleged danger to the independence of the State and that no example had been proffered of a case where a dual national had committed acts which undermined independence or national security. 151. The Romanian Government also argued that the legislation did not pursue a legitimate aim. They did not contest that the protection of the independence and national security of the State could be a legitimate aim which had to be assessed in the context of the historical and political background of the State in question. However, they disputed the submission by the respondent Government that the historico-political situation in Moldova rendered the aim legitimate in the present case. They further emphasised that a number of Laws passed between 1991 and 2000 did not impose a condition of single citizenship for candidacy for certain public posts. One example was Law no. 720 of 18 September 1991, regulating presidential elections. The Romanian Government, relying on Ždanoka v. Latvia ([GC], no. 58278/00, § 135, ECHR 2006-IV) and Ādamsons v. Latvia (no. 3669/03, § 123, 24 June 2008), argued that even if a condition of single citizenship could have been justified in the early years following Moldovan independence, with the passage of time and the consolidation of democracy, such a condition could no longer be justified. It was therefore difficult to understand the position of Moldova, which for three parliaments had allowed multiple citizens to become MPs but which now, some seventeen years later, considered the possession of another citizenship to constitute a grave danger to Moldova and assimilated dual nationality with treason. They argued that the aim of ensuring loyalty to the State should be realised through the imposition of sanctions for conduct which harms the national interest and not through restricting access of multiple nationals to certain public functions. 152. As regards proportionality, the Romanian Government again emphasised the existence of a minimum European standard which did not impose a condition of single citizenship for election to Parliament. Further, the reports published by ECRI and the Venice Commission (see paragraphs 45 and 51 above), which, as demonstrated by Shtukaturov v. Russia (no. 44009/05, § 95, ECHR 2008), were a relevant factor of the Court’s consideration, supported the assertion that there was a common European standard in electoral matters. Such reports were important both because of the intrinsic value of the opinion expressed – which was the opinion of impartial legal experts – and precisely because of the weight attributed to them by the Court and the other organs of the Council of Europe.