THE GEORGIAN LABOUR PARTY v. GEORGIA JUDGMENT 31 light of the political evolution of the country concerned, so that features that would be unacceptable in the context of one system may be justified in the context of another (see, among other authorities, Py v. France, no. 66289/01, § 46, ECHR 2005-I). As was noted above, in the present case, the electoral authorities had the challenge of remedying manifest shortcomings in the electoral rolls within very tight deadlines, in a “postrevolutionary” political situation (see paragraphs 11-13 and 19-23 above). Consequently, the Court concludes that the unexpected change in the rules on voter registration one month before the repeat parliamentary election of 28 March 2004 was, in the very specific circumstances of the situation, a solution devoid of criticism under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. 90. As to whether or not the active system of voter registration, which partly shifted responsibility for the accuracy of electoral rolls from the authorities onto the voters, was compatible with the Contracting States’ positive obligations to ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people (see Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], no. 74025/01, § 57, ECHR 2005-IX), the Court considers that the respondent State should be granted a wide margin of appreciation in this regard. 91. Moreover, it must be noted that the respondent State was not alone in opting for such a system of voter registration: several western European democracies, in particular Portugal and the United Kingdom, also rely to a considerable extent on voters’ individual declarations when compiling the national electoral rolls; Portuguese law even envisages individual criminal responsibility for those who evade taking the necessary steps for electoral registration (see paragraphs 54-57 above). Thus, there can be a diversity of possible choices in the system of voter registration among the Contracting States. None of these criteria should, however, be considered more valid than any other, provided that the expression of the will of the people through free, fair and regular elections is guaranteed (see, mutatis mutandis, Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs and Others, cited above, § 49). 92. The Court consequently considers that the active system of voter registration cannot in itself amount to a breach of the applicant party’s right to stand for election. Contrary to the applicant party’s allegation, in the particular circumstances of the present case, this system proved not to be the cause of the problem of ballot fraud but a reasonable attempt to remedy it, while not providing a perfect solution. 93. In the light of the above considerations, the Court concludes that, on balance, given the specific circumstances of the political situation in the respondent State, there has been no violation of the applicant party’s right to stand for election, as understood by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, on account of the introduction on 27 February 2004 of the new voter registration system.