The right to be elected is, “clearly established in international law. However, these rights are subject to reasonable restrictions.”[i] In turn, the obligation of the legal framework is to, “ensure that all eligible citizens are guaranteed the right to universal and equal suffrage as well as the right to contest elections without any discrimination.”[ii]  However, it is key to understand the word “eligible” in this context because just as international law and legal frameworks guarantee such inviolable rights, it remains permissible to apply reasonable limits with respect to candidate qualifications just as is the case with regard to voter qualifications.  The reverse remains true as well; that it remains unacceptable to apply discriminatory and unreasonable limits on such basic human rights. 

Inclusiveness is a key principle when considering the qualifications and nomination of candidates. Failure to apply the principle of inclusiveness results not only in the abridgement of the rights of those wanting to stand for election but also the choice of candidates presented to voters.[iii]

The eligibility requirements for candidates are not always the same as the eligibility requirements for voters. Although the right to stand for election has historically evolved in line with the right to vote, there are some differences that make the first subject to more restrictions. Consequently, eligible voters are not always eligible to stand for election.

In the same sense, those willing to stand for elections do not necessarily manage to be amongst the final nominated candidates.

As a starting point, it can be stated that according to the democratic principles, the eligibility criteria for candidates include at least the same criteria required to be a voter: citizenship, adulthood and full possession of civil and political rights. Any further requirement for candidacy must be explicitly mentioned in the Constitution or in the law and sufficiently justified by constitutional principles ​​that permit the limitation of fundamental rights of certain categories of citizens.

Most systems establish special candidacy requirements or set up certain restrictions due to various reasons:

• In certain cases, the aim is to ensure the neutrality of people in key positions of the electoral process by establishing incompatibilities with being a candidate (such as for the king, judges, members of the armed forces, etc.).
• Others establish special requirements in order to ensure the maturity of candidates (an age greater than that required to vote).
•  Others aim to ensure that candidates are part of the community, requiring for instance, that they have fulfilled their military service obligations, they possess the citizenship of the country concerned or they reside for a certain period of time in the geographic constituency concerned.
• Others exclude for similar reasons those convicted of serious crimes or specific offences.
• In other cases, the restrictions aim to protect community interests, providing for the disqualification of candidates whose economic relations with public entities could result in conflict of interests.
• Certain restrictions have their roots in the social or political history of each country: this is the case of the exclusion of preachers of certain religions that exercise influence in certain countries.
• There are other formal requirements, such as the requirement to register by a set deadline with the competent election authorities.
• In addition, candidates may be required to have a certain level of education or a particular profession.

Finally, in systems where political parties have the monopoly on the nomination of candidates, candidates must be nominated by a political party.Unreasonable and discriminatory restrictions on the right to stand for office are, however, not permissible.  For example, there may be no discrimination of an otherwise qualified citizen to contest an elections, “on the basis of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”[iv] In the view of the HRC in Bwalya v. Zambia, single party electoral systems are also to be added to the list of unreasonable restrictions.[v]