22. In the case Ždanoka v. Latvia, the Court also emphasised that “active participation” is a way of conduct giving rise to the restriction of the right to stand for elections31. In a later case, Ādamsons v. Latvia,32 it insisted on an individualised approach of the measure taking into account their actual conduct. In Etxeberria and Others v. Spain, it did not find a violation of Article 3 of Protocol 1 in a case where the applicants’ candidatures had been annulled on the grounds that they were pursuing, with a different political party, the activities of the three political parties which had been declared illegal and dissolved on account of their support for violence and for the activities of the ETA, a terrorist organisation. The Court found that the national authorities had had considerable evidence enabling them to conclude that the electoral groupings in question wished to continue the activities of the political parties concerned. It insisted on the fact that the authorities had taken decisions to cancel applications on an individual basis.