Articles 65(3) and 80(3) are new provisions providing a restriction in the nomination of a member of a municipal or constituency election commission for persons who have been previously convicted for prosecutable offences and in case of intentional crimes regardless of their rehabilitation. This restriction appears excessive and should therefore be reconsidered. The state has the right, even the obligation, to provide heightened and sometimes restrictive criteria on the recruitment of civil servants. Thus, the state ensures that the public service is composed of reputable, loyal, reliable and law-abiding persons with high moral standards. Nevertheless, these restrictions should be proportionate and take a case-by-case approach and specific circumstances of past offences, such as the severity of the offence and whether an applicant to an election administration could represent a threat in fulfilling the tasks vested in an election commission. Furthermore, to distinguish along such criteria may also be considered discriminatory if the distinction is not objectively justifiable.