24 legislator to modify it and, based on this system, there is certainty about the applicable provisions and that they will not be modified during the electoral process.” 87. On October 6, 2005, the Mexican electoral process was officially initiated and from January 1 to 15, 2005, the Federal Electoral Institute received the candidacies for the office of President of Mexico. The alleged victim did not submit a request to register his candidacy during this period. II. The amparo procedure 88. The Commission alleged that, at the time of facts, there was no simple, rapid and effective remedy in Mexico under which private individuals, such as the alleged victim, could raise constitutional issues relating to the electoral norms. Such a remedy was not available under Mexican law, because the application for amparo and the action for the protection of political and electoral rights did not meet the requirements of appropriateness to decide the situation denounced by the alleged victim. Despite this, the Commission indicated that, for a remedy to be considered effective, reference must have been made to the merits of the matter, and this did not happen in the instant case. The Inter-American Commission alleged that the “judicial remedy does not have to be decided in favor of the party alleging the violation of his rights in order to be considered ‘effective’; however, effectiveness implies that that the judicial organ has assessed the merits of the complaint.” The Commission argued that Article 25(2)(a) of the Convention establishes that the person who files a judicial remedy has the right that the authority deciding on his rights must refer to the merits, which would entail “determining the facts and the law – the legal effect – that refers to and deals with the specific purpose.” Lastly, it considered that amparo would have been the appropriate remedy, if its application had not been excluded from electoral matters, and that it was not unreasonable for a State to restrict the application for amparo to certain matters, provided that it ensured another prompt and simple protective remedy, for the matters that were not protected by the application for amparo. 89. The representatives indicated that they had filed an application for amparo, because it was the only remedy that might be admissible, since, to obtain the protection that the alleged victim sought, it was necessary to declare that Article 175 of the COFIPE was unconstitutional, and only the Supreme Court of Justice had jurisdiction to do this. Consequently, the resolution of the Supreme Court that the application for amparo was inadmissible in this case closed all the doors to justice in the State to the alleged victim, violating his right to judicial protection, established in Article 25 of the Convention. As in the case of the Inter-American Commission, the representatives argued that, at the time of the facts, there were no remedies available in Mexico that could have been effective in this case. 90. The State did not submit arguments about the effectiveness of the application for amparo in this case, but rather alleged that the effective remedy to protect political rights in Mexico was the action for the protection of the political and electoral rights of the citizen and stated that it was effective, simple, accessible and prompt. * * * 91. The Court observes that, in order to prove the alleged violation of Article 25 of the Convention, both the Commission and the representatives indicated the lack of a simple, prompt and effective remedy for the alleged victim to claim the protection of his constitutional rights. In this regard, the Court considers, as do the Commission and the