provided for under Article 27 (2) of the African Charter. The Complainant concludes that the restrictions are therefore unreasonable. 84. The Respondent State on the other hand argues that residency is an acceptable ground for restriction, and supports this assertion by contending that Zimbabweans living abroad are less familiar with the domestic political situation and may therefore be unable to cast “meaningful votes”. The Respondent State furthermore submits that Zimbabweans living abroad are not affected by the outcome of elections and should therefore not have the same voting rights as residents. The Respondent State also claims that it does not have the financial resources to internationalize its elections, hence the need to have all electors present in Zimbabwe to cast their votes. 85. As correctly indicated by the Complainant, the Commission has held in several of its decisions that the only legitimate interests for the restriction of rights that are compatible with the African Charter are the conditions enumerated under Article 27 (2), which states that “the rights of the African Charter shall be exercised with due regard to the rights of others, collective security, morality and common interest”.29 The African Charter does not however define the scope of these conditions, which allows for interpretation on a case by case basis, taking into consideration the peculiarities of each circumstance at hand. 86. In relation to the claims of the Respondent State as to the cost of organizing elections that include Zimbabwean citizens living abroad, the Commission notes that this appears to be a blanket justification, and that the argument is not accompanied by any supporting evidence. Without evidence detailing the additional costs that such an election would entail, the Commission would have to rely on conjecture to make the necessary analysis. Certainly, while the Commission recognizes that a larger electorate would naturally entail more expenses, without specific data and evidence, it is not possible for the Commission to truly appreciate the difference in cost between elections that include or exclude citizens that are resident abroad. For these reasons, the Commission is of the view that this particular aim has not been sufficiently justified. 87. The Respondent State provides two other justifications, which will be considered jointly, as they both relate to what the Respondent State views as the primary reason for excluding citizens living abroad, specifically, that they are less informed about the issues at stake and that they are not affected by the outcome of elections. Communication 255/02 – Garreth Anver Prince v South Africa (2004) ACHPR, para 43; Communication 15/96: Social and Economic Rights Action Centre & Another v Nigeria, (2001) ACHPR, para 165 29 21