MATTHEWS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT 18 sufficiently involved in the general democratic supervision of the activities of the European Community, to constitute part of the “legislature” of Gibraltar for the purposes of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. D. The application of Article 56 of the Convention to the case 55. Article 56 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention provide as follows: “1. Any State may at the time of its ratification or at any time thereafter declare by notification addressed to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe that the … Convention shall, subject to paragraph 4 of this Article, extend to all or any of the territories for whose international relations it is responsible. ... 3. The provisions of [the] Convention shall be applied in such territories with due regard, however, to local requirements.” 56. The Government noted, without relying formally on the point, that two members of the Commission had emphasised the constitutional position of Gibraltar as a dependent territory in the context of Article 56 (formerly Article 63) of the Convention. 57. The applicant was of the view that the “local requirements” referred to in Article 56 § 3 of the Convention could not be interpreted so as to restrict the application of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 in the case. 58. The Commission, which found Article 3 not to be applicable on other grounds, did not consider this point. Two members of the Commission, in separate concurring opinions, both found that Article 56 of the Convention had a role to play in the case. 59. The Court recalls that in the Tyrer v. the United Kingdom judgment (25 April 1978, Series A no. 26, pp. 18-19, § 38) it found that before the former Article 63 § 3 could apply, there would have to be “positive and conclusive proof of a requirement”. Local requirements, if they refer to the specific legal status of a territory, must be of a compelling nature if they are to justify the application of Article 56 of the Convention. In the present case, the Government do not contend that the status of Gibraltar is such as to give rise to “local requirements” which could limit the application of the Convention, and the Court finds no indication that there are any such requirements.