judgments in cases in which the Mexican State was not a party, provide guidance for all the decisions of the Mexican judges, provided that this is more favorable to the individual.” 28 26. The Court finds that requiring all members of the Judiciary to exercise control of conformity with the Convention ex officio, as well as considering that the judgments of the Inter-American Court with regard to Mexico are binding, reveal that, under domestic law, there is an obligation to guarantee the accessibility and effectiveness of the protection proceedings for those independent candidates who allege the violation of their right to be elected, as decided by this Court in its Judgment in this case. 27. Consequently, taking into account: (i) the implementation of the 2007 constitutional reform; (ii) the reform of la Electoral Contestation Law and of the Organic Law of the Federal Judiciary, which established by law the competence of the electoral tribunals to examine the constitutionality of the electoral norms in specific cases; (iii) the judicial precedents provided that reveal a judicial practice consequent with what was ordered in the Judgment as regards the need to guarantee the accessibility and effectiveness of the proceedings to protect the politico-electoral rights of independent candidates; (iv) the 2011 constitutional reform, which established the obligation to interpret provisions concerning human rights based on the pro persona principle, combined with (v) the interpretation of the Supreme Court in this regard, according to which domestic courts are obliged to carry out control of conformity with the Convention ex officio and to consider that this Court’s case law in cases involving Mexico is binding, as well as (vi) the principle of good faith in complying with international obligations (supra considering paragraph 4), this Court considers that Mexico has complied with the measure of reparation concerning the adaptation of its domestic law so that its citizens are effectively guaranteed the possibility of contesting the constitutionality of the legal regulation of the right to be elected. B. Other aspects related to compliance with the Judgment that the parties have reported to the Court 28. In their briefs of May 7 and October 8, 2009, the representatives indicated that Mexico was failing to comply with the Judgment by maintaining in force article 73.VII of the Amparo Act, 29 so that this should be annulled. In this regard, the State indicated that “the obligation to adapt its legislation was delimited to the constitutional reforms that granted powers to the Electoral Tribunal of the Federal Judiciary […] to declare that an electoral law is unconstitutional by means of the protection proceedings, and does not […] mention the amendment of the norms that regulate the law on amparo.” The Commission did not submit observations in this regard. 29. The Court notes that, as mentioned by the State, the operative paragraph pending compliance only refers to the adaptation of the legislation relating to the protection proceedings (supra having seen paragraph 5). In this regard, the Court also recalls that the Judgment found that “it is not, in itself, incompatible with the Convention that a State limit the remedy of amparo to some matters, provided that it offers another similar remedy with the same scope for those human rights that are not heard by the judicial authorities by means 28 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 14, 2013, fifth considering paragraph. 29 On this point, the representatives provided as an attachment to their brief of October 8, 2009, a ruling of June 8, 2009, on an application for amparo filed by Marco Antonio Rascon Cordova. However, it is only partially legible. 11