circumstances where it is not necessary and proportional, is also prohibited by Article 2.36 122. Given that there is no dispute between the Parties in this case that sections 6(1), 7(1), 7(2) and 7(3) effect a differentiation, the question to be resolved by the Court is whether or not this differentiation amounts to the discrimination proscribed by Article 2 of the Charter. 123. The differentiation in this case is as between those employed in the civil service, who are eligible to serve in the Electoral Commission, and those outside the civil service who are automatically ineligible to serve in the Electoral Commission either as Director of Elections or returning officers. 124. As earlier alluded to, countries are permitted latitude in configuring their electoral management bodies to deal with their peculiar local challenges. This, however, does not mean that arrangements chosen by a State Party are immune from scrutiny by competent bodies such as the Court. 125. The Court has taken note of the submissions by the Respondent State for its preference in the use of civil servants for managing various aspects of the electoral process. The Court recalls its earlier finding that the involvement of civil servants in the management of electoral processes is not, without more, per se, irregular. In the instant Application, in so far as the Applicants have alleged a violation of their right to non-discrimination, primarily, in connection with their right to participate in the government of their country, the Court remains aware that participation in one’s government can take many forms with serving as a Director of Elections or a returning officer(s) being just some of the possible avenues. In the circumstances, the Court holds that limiting the selection of the Director of Elections and the returning officers, from the civil service is not a violation of Article 2 of the Charter. 36 Ibid., § 139. 34