ECOWAS, we shall content ourselves with reference to the following provisions of the 2001 Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance: - - - Article 1(g): “The State and all its institutions belong to all the citizens; therefore none of their decisions and actions shall involve any form of discrimination, be it on an ethnic, racial, religion or regional basis.”; Article 1(i): “Political parties shall (…) participate freely and without hindrance or discrimination in any electoral process. The freedom of the opposition shall be guaranted.”; Article 2(3): “Member States shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that women have equal rights with men to vote and be voted for in elections, to participate in the formulation of government policies and the implementation thereof and to hold public offices and perform public functions at all levels of governance.” 32. The Court is of the view that the exclusion in question in the instant case is neither legal nor necessary for the stabilisation of the democratic order, contrary to the allegations of the Defendant. The restriction operated by the Electoral Code, as things stand, does not only have the effect of preventing the Applicants from submitting themselves as candidates, but significantly limits the choices offered to the electoral body, and thus adulterates the competitive nature of the elections. 33. Finally, the argument advanced by the Defendant State, according to which the disputed measure may not be considered as discriminatory, because actors of the Political Transition may themselves be affected by the restriction of the right to participate in the elections, is of course unacceptable to the Court. It goes without say indeed, that the reasons behind the restriction are not the same for all, without discrimination. While it is a matter of ensuring that the actors of the Transition disregard the principle of equality of candidates, by using their presence and position in the State as a means of taking “undue advantage” over competitors, it becomes a different matter when considering those deemed to be close to the ousted regime; the latter were sanctioned for the opinions they had held in the past. In the specific case of those considered close to the ousted regime, the objective behind their restriction was to stigmatise them and shame them, one trait obviously absent for the actors of the Political 12