of the amparo.” 30 Therefore, this Court considers that the request made by the representatives is not a matter to be examined when monitoring compliance with the Judgment. 30. In addition, in their brief of November 13, 2012, the representatives indicated that, in two decisions of June 2012, “the Electoral Tribunal had repeatedly stated that it was unable to exercise control of conformity with the Convention if the issue in question was to contest a norm contained in the Mexican Constitution.” In this regard, they indicated that this “reveals a failure to comply [with] the American Convention.” In this regard, the Court reiterates that the obligation included in the sixth operative paragraph of the Judgment only refers to “citizens [being] guaranteed effectively the possibility of contesting the constitutionality of the legal regulation of the right to be elected” (supra having seen paragraph 5). Therefore, this Court considers that the request made by the representatives is not a matter to be examined when monitoring compliance with the Judgment. 31. Lastly, the representatives asked that the Court “take into account the decision on the application for amparo” filed by Mr. Castañeda Gutman on January 9, 2012. The State indicated that “local decisions should not modify the Court’s assessment of compliance with its Judgment.” Despite this, the State considered that “the District Court [delivered] a ruling on aspects that do not correspond to the plaintiff’s claim and that were not even mentioned […] in his initial brief.” In addition, the State emphasized that the ruling was “based on a supposed omission [to hand over some annexes] that occurred in April 2012, [which] had not been examined by the Court […] and which […] was remedied by the State in September [2012].” Furthermore, it stressed that “the amparo ruling concerned is not a final decision, since appeals have been filed against it which are pending a decision.” For its part, the Commission indicated that “although domestic decisions relating to compliance with the Court’s orders may be relevant in the context of the monitoring procedure, in this case the Commission observes that the said decision on amparo does not appear to have an impact on the analysis of the status of compliance with the only aspect of the Judgment that remains pending.” 32. This Court notes that, on January 9, 2012, Mr. Castañeda Gutman filed an application for amparo against the President of Mexico, the Minister of the Interior, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Vice Minister for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs based on the alleged non-compliance with the sixth operative paragraph of the Judgment. On December 13, 2012, the First District Administrative Court in the Federal District indicated, inter alia, that the respective authorities “have not guaranteed the full enjoyment of the fundamental right to jurisdictional protection of the complainant, because, even though they have been required to forward the documentation that the Inter-American Court […] considers necessary in order to be able to analyze the information and documents [relating to] monitoring compliance […], the authorities […] have abstained from taking the necessary steps to respond to this request fully and effectively.” Therefore, it decided “to grant the amparo for the respective authorities to take the necessary steps […] to respond promptly to the orders of the Inter-American Court […], the purpose of which is for that jurisdictional organ to be able to examine all the information provided by the parties.” Furthermore, the domestic ruling indicated that “these amparo proceedings which he has filed do not seek to analyze, review, assess or decide mattes that are the exclusive competence of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights; and no decision will be taken in relation to the interpretation and scope of the judgment delivered in the Case of Castañeda Gutman […], nor 30 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 92. 12