As stated in the previous Joint Opinion, “[t]he stated aim to defend the Constitution and the integrity of the democratic State, by preventing a political party from taking power unconstitutionally, as expressed in the decision of the Constitutional Court which led to the prohibition of the political party Şor, is legitimate and may justify restrictions to the right to be elected. Similarly, the stated aim to implement a decision of a Constitutional Court would also prima facie constitute a legitimate aim if such was mandated by the decision”.15 The aim of the measure is legitimate, since it can be equated to “protect(ing) the integrity of the democratic process by excluding from participation in the work of a democratic legislature those individuals who had taken an active and leading role in a party which was directly linked to the attempted violent overthrow of the newly-established democratic regime”.16 In addition, the ineligibility included in the amendments, as it is related to the participation in activities that generated the unconstitutionality of a party, may be intended to prevent those persons who have put the constitutional order at risk from being elected to public office. In this regard, the European Court of Human Rights has recognised that the setting up of self-protection mechanisms to preserve the democratic order, for instance by excluding from the legislature any senior officials who had committed gross violations of the Constitution or breached their oath provided for in the Constitution constituted a legitimate aim.