102. The necessity of a limitation must finally be measured against what is considered acceptable in an open and democratic society. In its examination of limitations on freedom of expression, the European Court38 indicated broadmindedness, pluralism and tolerance as characterizing a democratic society, which the Commission endorsed in Kenneth Good v Republic of Botswana.39 103. In this regard, the Commission observes a broad range of diversity in the way States organize their electoral systems in relation to the ability of non-residents to vote from abroad. While some States require that all citizens be present in their territory in order to vote40, others allow their citizens to vote from abroad. The Commission further notes differences even in the practice of States that allow for external voting, for example: all citizens living outside the State’s territory may be allowed to vote externally;41 all citizens may vote externally but only in certain types of elections, for example, Presidential or national;42 external voting may be permissible only for a certain category of citizens, for example, persons in government service;43 citizens living abroad may have the right to vote externally if a specified minimum number of them register with diplomatic missions in the foreign country;44 and external voting may be limited in time, for example, nonresidents may lose this right if they have resided outside their country of citizenship for more than a specified period of time.45 104. In this particular instance, the Respondent State allows non-resident citizens to vote from abroad but only if they are on duty in government service, or are able to travel to Zimbabwe and vote from their relevant constituencies. 105. The Commission further observes that the general trend of State practice around the globe is towards a more inclusive approach to the voting rights of nonresidents, allowing them the right to vote and facilitating external voting, notwithstanding the above discussed differences in the way States actually put this into practice.46 The Commission nevertheless notes that deviations or alternatives to the general trend are still retained by States, and that these deviations are not considered so out of sync as to be considered unacceptable. In other words, global and regional practice has yet to cross a critical threshold, such that any deviations would be considered unacceptable. The practice of Application No. 5493/72 – Handyside v. the United Kingdom (1976) ECHR judgment, para 49 Communication 313/05 – Kenneth Good v Republic of Botswana (2010) ACHPR, para 197 40 See for example Burkina Faso, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Ethiopia, Nigeria 41 See for example Botswana, Cape Verde, South Africa 42 See for example Angola, Benin 43 See for example Israel, Ireland, Singapore, Turkey, Zimbabwe 44 See for example Kenya, Senegal 45 See for example Germany, United Kingdom 46 The International IDEA Handbook (n 46 above), See also IDEA “Voting from abroad database” available at https://www.idea.int/data-tools/data/voting-abroad 38 39 26