ATAKISHI v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT 7 34. The applicant submitted that the decision to disqualify him had been arbitrary and based on flimsy, insufficient, unreliable and fabricated evidence. In particular, he noted that H.S.’s written statement accusing him of the intention of bribing voters had not been properly registered in the ConEC’s official records of incoming correspondence and complaints. Although this written statement had subsequently been used as the evidentiary basis for his disqualification, the domestic authorities and courts had never heard H.S. in person and had failed to take into consideration his numerous subsequent statements retracting his accusations and insisting that he had no intention of accusing the applicant of any wrongdoing. 35. The applicant further claimed that most of the other written complaints accusing him of various illegal campaigning methods had been made by persons whose identity had not been verified and were essentially “fabricated”. None of these complainants had ever been heard in person at the domestic hearings. The accusations contained in those written complaints were either vague or uncorroborated by any sound evidence and could not constitute proof of any wrongdoing by the applicant. 36. The applicant further submitted that the manner in which the ConEC meeting of 29 October 2005 had been conducted was in breach of several formal requirements of the Electoral Code. He had not been invited to participate in the meeting and had not been provided with a copy of the ConEC decision in a timely manner. Moreover, the examination of the relevant documents gave rise to serious doubts as to whether such a meeting had ever actually taken place and, even if it had, whether it had taken place on 29 October 2005. There were inconsistencies in the minutes of the ConEC meeting as to the date of the meeting and which specific ConEC members had been present, as well as how they had voted. He further noted that both the ConEC and the domestic courts had held unreasonably brief hearings, relied on extremely unreliable evidence, and completely failed to substantiate the factual accuracy of the allegations against him. 2. The Court’s assessment 37. The Court notes that the summary of its case-law on the right to effectively stand for election, as guaranteed by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, can be found in, among many other judgments, Orujov v. Azerbaijan (no. 4508/06, §§ 40-42, 26 July 2011). On a more specific note, the Court also reiterates that, while the Contracting States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in imposing conditions on the right to vote and to stand for election, it is for the Court to determine in the last resort whether the requirements of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 have been complied with; it has to satisfy itself that the conditions do not curtail the rights in question to such an extent as to impair their very essence and deprive them of their effectiveness; that they are imposed in pursuit of a legitimate aim; and that the means employed are not disproportionate or