88. Historically, eligibility to vote has been closely linked to the relationship between the electorate and the territory in which elections are to take place. Persons with sufficiently strong links to the territory have been considered as eligible voters, although the yardstick for measuring the strength of any supposed links has been appreciated differently by various States. Citizenship and residency have nevertheless often formed the basis for determining such a relationship. 89. In this instance, the Respondent State tests this relationship through citizenship and residency, requiring that a person satisfy this two tier test in order to vote. The Respondent State justifies this by submitting that non-resident citizens are less informed and would thus not be able to cast a “meaningful vote”. In this regard, the Commission acknowledges that traditionally, this indeed may have been the case, and non-residents would generally have been assumed to be less knowledgeable on the issues at stake in comparison to their resident counterparts. The strength of this argument does not however retain its validity in our current globalized environment. With increased migration, accessibility of transportation that allows non-residents to travel to and fro more frequently, and the development of modern technology that allows non-residents to keep abreast of events in their home countries, non-residents today are no longer in the same position as their counterparts from the not too distance past. Notably, in national elections such as a referendum, as opposed to local elections with more particularized issues at stake, it is even more difficult to espouse a general principle that non-residents are uninformed to the extent that they will be unable to cast meaningful votes, as claimed by the Respondent State. The Commission further notes that in many countries across the continent, non-residents may in fact serve as reliable and independent sources of information for residents, through social media and television networks established abroad. 90. The Commission is therefore of the view that in this particular instance, limiting the voting rights of the Victims on the assumption that non-residents are less knowledgeable about the issues at stake is not justified. 91. The Respondent State also submits that non-residents are not affected by the outcome of elections, and that consequently, they should not be granted the same voting rights as residents. The Commission observes that this assertion is not entirely accurate, as by the mere fact that they retain citizenship, non-residents will still be affected by the outcome of elections, at least whenever they come into contact with their country of citizenship or through laws which may have extra territorial application. The Commission is however of the view that non-resident and resident citizens are generally not affected to the same degree by the outcome of elections. Residents would certainly have more at stake, as by being physically within the territory of that country, their daily lives are affected in a more comprehensive manner. The Commission notes that in principle, the outcome of 22