231. Furthermore, the Applicants assert that if the President of the Respondent State would stand for elections or put a candidate forward from his party, the fact that he is represented in the electoral body together with other representatives of his government and the members of the candidates are not represented, would candidate of independent the ruling party, whereas independent result in an unfair advantage ruling party vis-a-vis candidates, which constitutes other candidates for the and_ particularly that cannot a discrimination be reasonably and objectively justified. Therefore, the Applicants maintain that the Respondent State has violated its obligation to guarantee the right to equal protection of the law. 232. The Respondent State disputes the claims of the Applicants and argues that in no way can the impugned law be read as being devoted to the representation of candidates from political parties, since this connection of representation has been replaced by the mechanism of proposal. Therefore, in any way violate the right of citizens from participate in directly their country, either the impugned the Respondent or through law does not State to freely freely chosen representatives. 233. The Respondent State also contends that the impugned law cannot occasion a violation of the right to equal access to the public services of the country, since its electoral body does not interfere in matters relating to the access to the public service of the country. 234. The Respondent State also notes the challenges of identifying independent candidates to participate as an entity to propose members to the electoral body, considering that they are by definition not affiliated to any political organisation. Furthermore, the Respondent State observes that, when constituting the electoral body more than a year before the elections, independent candidates have not yet submitted their nomination papers which could be used to identify them as independent candidates. The Respondent State also asserts that 51