democratic institutions. These limitations are intended to maintain public confidence in the political system and to ensure that elected representatives adhere to high ethical standards. 83. In the instant case, the Court notes that the restriction that the Applicant contests is provided for by Article 4 of Ordinance No. 2020-356 of 8 April 2020 revising the Electoral Code. The said restriction also pursues a legitimate aim, as it seeks to guarantee the integrity and credibility of the electoral process. It seeks to safeguard public morality by excluding persons whose conduct has seriously undermined public order or fundamental societal values. In this sense, it helps to protect the legitimacy of the electorate, to prevent abuses, and to affirm the link between responsible citizenship and respect for essential social norms. 84. The Court further observes that the restriction in question strikes a reasonable balance between the objective pursued and the restriction of the protected right, insofar as it is neither general nor automatic, but is the result of a court decision. In the instant case, the Court observes that the electoral court, having considered the criminal decision as final, ruled on the basis of a judicial decision whose irrevocability it could not challenge. It follows that, on the strength of this irrevocable conviction, the Applicant’s right to participate in political affairs may be subject to restrictions on the basis of his conviction. 85. In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the restrictions imposed on the Applicant are within the applicable legal and normative framework and do not constitute a violation of his right to participate freely in government. 86. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant’s right to participate freely in the government of his country, protected by Article 13(1) of the Charter. 19