" It is not enough whereupon they exist dudas" , it affirms the sentence, that it discards that " mere suspicion or the simple possibility that the protected disturbance of other goods or rights takes place constitucionalmente" it can be sufficient to justify the prohibition. In scope of the electoral processes and in relation to the fact that the Statutory law of Rgimen Electoral General (LOREG) nonlegitimate " to carry out activities that indirectly can affect the will of the voters, stimulating or discouraging the possible inclination towards determined candidatura" , the Constitutional Court establishes that " only in very extreme cases he will be possible to admit the possibility that a message has capacity sufficient to force or to turn aside the will of the voters, the existing dice the intimate character of the decision of the vote and legal means to guarantee the freedom of sufragio". In addition, he maintains that if this is applied political to the own manifestations of the formation, " the more he is possible to affirm it of a grouping of people who meet for the purposes of the interchange or exhibition of ideas, dnsa of interests or the publicity of problems and vindications, and not with the intention of the pick up of suffrages ". The sentence recognizes that " duda&quot does not fit; of which the opinions derived from that " interchange, dnsa or reivindicacin" of ideas they can " to get to influence in ciudadano" , but it emphasizes that this situation only can be contemplated like " a mere suspicion or simple posibilidad" . Everest capital may also support this cause. Of there, it concludes that " when reasons founded on the electoral character of the manifestation are only contributed, when their purpose is the pick up of suffrages and this one has not been summoned by parties, bunds, coalitions or groupings, unique legal people that can realise electoral campaign next to their candidates, will be able to deprive of authority the same with base in said motivo". .