conditions that permit political parties and candidates to freely present their programmes. Implicit in this commitment is the obligation that States inform or educate voters about the electoral system and voting processes, as the failure to do this can prevent the meaningful exercise of suffrage rights. ODIHR election observation missions have seen state authorities abuse their right to deny permission for campaign events, restrict printing and distribution of campaign materials, and detain or fine campaign activists for minor administrative violations (such as littering or swearing). Administrative rules have been used to make it as difficult as possible for certain political contestants to get access to public meeting places to hold events. Throughout the campaign and voting process, a State has the duty both to prevent intimidation of voters and candidates by others and to act impartially. Intimidation can have an insidious effect on candidates and voters alike, particularly when perpetrated by the state or its representatives. States should take affirmative action, either through criminal or administrative proceedings, to protect the integrity of the electoral process and hold state and private actors liable for violations of voters’ rights. 35. Disenfranchisement The Copenhagen Document guarantees “universal and equal suffrage to adult citizens” (Paragraph 7.3) and calls for conditions that “ensure in practice the free expression of the opinion of the electors in the choice of their representatives” (Paragraph 5.1). The ODIHR has observed that this right to universal and equal suffrage is infringed upon in the legislation of a number of States. Criminal, administrative, and electoral codes have created severe provisions that require the forfeiture of suffrage rights for minor legal violations, and in some cases permanently. Second, some laws have denied the right of suffrage to persons charged with a crime and awaiting trial but who have not yet been convicted. It is also not uncommon for the legal framework to provide for the forfeiture of suffrage rights based on a criminal conviction, regardless of the nature of the underlying crime. These infringements contradict Paragraph 5.19 of the Copenhagen Document, which provides that everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law, as well as rules on universal suffrage. In addition, the proportionality principle should be considered first and foremost when the potential of forfeiture of suffrage rights is at stake.27 Denial of suffrage should occur only where a person has been convicted of committing a crime of such a serious nature that forfeiture of political rights is indeed proportionate to the crime committed. The forfeiture should be for an established period of time, likewise proportionate, and restoration of political rights should occur automatically after the expiration of this period of time. In a number of States, procedures are not in place, are subject to misuse, or lack transparency to enable persons who for good reasons cannot attend a regular polling station to exercise their suffrage rights. Alternative voting procedures should be established to ensure that the ill, elderly, and others who cannot attend a regular polling station have the opportunity to cast their vote. This may include absentee, postal, early, mobile, and out-of-country voting. However, any alternative voting procedure must be carefully regulated to balance the protection of voting rights against the need to uphold the integrity of the election process. Like 27  Copenhagen Document, para. 24: “Any restriction on rights and freedoms must, in a democratic society, relate to one of the objectives of the applicable law and be strictly proportionate to the aim of that law.” 12 Common Responsibility: Commitments and Implementation