7. In accordance with the first operative paragraph of the Order of the Court of July 1, 2009 (supra having seen paragraph 5), in this Order the Court will assess compliance with the sixth operative paragraph of the Judgment and will refer to other aspects related to compliance with the Judgment that the parties have reported to this Court. 8. The Court notes that this is the first time that it assesses compliance with the measure of reparation concerning the adaptation of domestic law ordered in the Judgment. Consequently, in this Order, it will summarize the principle arguments of the parties and the Commission concerning this measures that have been presented from October 2008 to the date of issue of this Order (supra having seen paragraphs 2 to 4, 6 to 8 and 10 to 13) and will consider those that are relevant to compliance with the said reparation. A. Obligation to complete the adaptation of domestic law (sixth operative paragraph of the Judgment) Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 9. The State advised that, the legislative reforms published on July 1, 2008, made it possible inter alia, for any of the chambers of the Electoral Tribunal of the Federal Judiciary, in proceedings for the protection of a citizen’s politico-electoral rights (hereinafter “protection proceedings”), to determine that a legal norm should not be applied because it was considered unconstitutional. It also argued that these reforms established an individual’s “right to file [protection] proceedings on his own behalf through his legal representative.” Furthermore, it indicated that the adaptation of domestic law had been “consolidate[d] by the 2011 constitutional amendment concerning human rights that specifically permitted the judgments of this Court to be incorporated into the examination of the merits of cases filed before the Electoral Tribunal.” In this regard, the State indicated that the changes that had been made established a system of mechanisms of appeal, as provided for in the 2007 constitutional reform, and this, “together with the rulings of the Electoral Tribunal of the Federal Judiciary, provided by the State[, prove] that the effective remedy ordered by the Court in its judgment exist in both law and practice.” 10. Mexico argued that the criterion used by the Court to find that its rulings had been complied with was the practical effects. It indicated that “a national margin of appreciation should exist that allows the State to find the means to achieve the end established in a judgment.” In this regard, it indicated that, in other cases where the Court has ordered the amendment of secondary legislation, such as Olmedo Bustos v. Chile and Villagrán Morales et al. v. Guatemala, “when examining compliance, [the Court] has abstained from ruling on the legislative mechanisms of the national organs and, pertinently, has merely assessed the practical effects of its judgments, and whether the expected result has been achieved.” It also considered that the Court, “in no part [of the judgment] ordered or indicated that there was a mechanism that would result in the annulment of norms; it merely indicated that, using the specific mechanism of the [protection] proceedings it should be possible to question the constitutionality of laws or norms that regulate the right to be elected.” Consequently, the Stated “ask[ed] that full compliance with the judgment should be declared.” 11. The representatives indicated that the sixth operative paragraph reveals that “the purpose of this paragraph is […] that, ‘by means of a remedy, the citizens are truly guaranteed the ability to question the constitutionality of the legal regulation of the right to be elected.’” They indicated that, “both article [10.1.a)] and article [80.1.d)] of the Law [on the System of Mechanisms for Contesting Electoral Matters] prevent citizens who are not members of political parties from protecting their political right to be elected.” In this regard, 4