As underlined by the Court, free elections and freedom of expression, including freedom of political debate, are the foundations of any democratic system. Article 3 Protocol 1 ECHR implies subjective rights, including the right to vote and to stand for election and, once elected, to exercise one’s mandate. The rights guaranteed by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention are not absolute. According to the Court, there is scope for “implicit limitations”, and the Contracting States have a wide margin of appreciation in this regard. However, the Court must ensure that the restrictions imposed on the exercise of the rights arising from this article do not reduce them to the point of affecting their very substance and depriving them of their effectiveness, that they pursue a legitimate aim and that the means employed are not disproportionate. The concept of “implicit limitation” means that the traditional criteria of “necessity” or “compelling social need” which the Court uses when examining the application of Articles 8 to 11 of the Convention are not applied in cases relating to Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. Instead, the Court first examines whether there has been arbitrary treatment or a lack of proportionality. It then examines whether the restriction constituted an unjustified interference with the free expression of the opinion of the people.