SAVICKIS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINIONS account five specific factors. Four of them relate specifically to the primary aim of protecting Latvia’s constitutional identity and avoiding retrospective approbation of the consequences of the Soviet Union’s immigration policy (see paragraphs 214-17 of the present judgment), the fifth one relates to the secondary aim of the protection of the economic system of the country (see paragraph 218 of the present judgment). We will comment on these factors in turn. We note that, although the Government invoke the argument of the bilateral social-security agreements with Belarus and Russia (see paragraph 175 of the present judgment), the majority do not seem to consider it useful to rely on the existence of these agreements. Indeed, in Andrejeva the Court held that such agreements could not absolve Latvia of its responsibility under Article 14 of the Convention (Andrejeva, cited above, § 90; see also Ribać, cited above, § 65). Moreover, bilateral agreements have not been signed with all of the former Soviet republics (see paragraph 79 of the judgment), and they do not seem to allow for a retrospective recalculation of pension entitlement (see paragraphs 80-81 of the present judgment). VII. FACTORS RELATING TO THE DOCTRINE OF STATE CONTINUITY AND THE PROTECTION OF LATVIA’S CONSTITUTIONAL IDENTITY 16. The majority, first of all, observe that the ground for the impugned difference in treatment “is directly linked with the primary aim which the Latvian Constitutional Court relied on”. They consider that the preferential treatment accorded to those possessing Latvian citizenship is “in line with” that legitimate aim (see paragraph 214 of the present judgment). We understand that with this the majority argue in substance that the aim pursued by the legislature could be achieved by the difference in treatment created by paragraph 1 of the transitional provisions of the State Pensions Act. While the appropriateness of a measure is indeed a necessary condition for its proportionality (see Rasmussen, cited above, § 41, and J.D. and A v. the United Kingdom, nos. 32949/17 and 34614/17, §§ 99 and 104, 24 October 2019), the question in this case is whether the impugned difference in treatment was an excessive means to achieve the stated aim. 17. It is uncontested that “during the Soviet occupation, an extensive influx of civilian workforce and military personnel was artificially organised into the territory of Latvia as a part of a general Sovietisation and Russification policy, resulting in a large-scale transfer of population from the Soviet Union to Latvia” (see the submissions of the Government in paragraph 171 of the judgment). The Government argued “that such population transfers were prohibited under international law” (ibid.). We do not question that characterisation. Nor do we underestimate the suffering caused during the 83