The Venice Commission considers that as a matter of general principle consistent with legal certainty this kind of reasoning by analogy is only permissible if a situation has unintentionally not been regulated by the legislator and the relevant situation is comparable to the situation dealt with in the purportedly analogous provision. This is highly doubtful in the present case. As already indicated the rationale behind the relevant election legislation seems to be that deficiencies in candidacies should be dealt with prior to elections, whereas irregularities during the voting process should be remedied thereafter. This seems to be a consistent and exhaustive approach. Moreover, in the present context the suggested need to identify a mayor different from the winner of the elections does not relate to the person of the candidate (such as resignation or death) but it is instead brought about by the contradictory decisions of the relevant election bodies (first in permitting a candidate to stand for election and secondly in refusing then to certify his/her status following success in the election). Grounding such a far-reaching decision – which is contrary to the basic democratic principle that the candidate with the highest number of votes is considered elected and which interferes with the rights and interests of the candidates, of their parties and of the electorate – on such a questionable legal analogy raises serious concerns with respect to the internationally recognised rule of law principle in terms of legality, legal certainty and foreseeability.