31 the Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico, so that the Electoral Tribunal can only rule on the legality of an act or decision, if it is not to verify the conformity of the electoral law with the Constitution, because, to the contrary, it would be exercising a power that it does not have pursuant to the Constitution.” 117. According to the State, under the juridical system, the function of the judicial procedure for the protection of the political and electoral rights of the citizen is to revoke or modify acts or decisions that are considered to violate, among others, the political and electoral rights of voting and being elected, according to the provisions of Article 84 of the Law on Contesting Electoral Matters. Consequently, the alleged victim should have filed this remedy so that, if his claim had been justified, his right would have been restituted without the need to declare the unconstitutionality of Article 175 of the Electoral Code. Despite the foregoing, according to the State, the action for the protection of the political and electoral rights of the citizen is also a remedy to exercise control of the constitutionality and legality of acts that violate political rights, and “since [the 1996 constitutional reform], the Electoral Tribunal is the highest jurisdictional authority in the matter, a specialized organ of the Judiciary (Article 99 of the Constitution) and the final instance with regard to the control of the constitutionality of electoral acts and decisions.” * * * 118. On this point, the Court is called on to determine whether the judicial proceedings for the protection of the political and electoral rights of the citizen constituted an effective remedy. An effective judicial remedy is one, which can produce the result for which it was conceived;34 in other words, the remedy must be capable of leading to an analysis by the competent court to establish whether there has been a human rights violation and of providing reparation.35 119. In this case, the parties disagree on whether the Electoral Tribunal, which is the competent organ to decide the protection action, had jurisdiction to examine and decide the alleged victim’s claim concerning the unconstitutionality of Article 175 and others of the COFIPE and, if applicable, to disapply this provision in the specific case so that the alleged victim could be restored to the enjoyment of his rights. 120. Regarding the competence of the Electoral Tribunal, since 1996, Article 99 of the Constitution has established (and this was in force at the time of the facts) that the “Electoral Tribunal shall be […] the highest jurisdictional authority on the matter [and] it corresponds to it to decide definitively and irrefutably on […] contestations of acts and decisions that violate the political and electoral rights to vote and to be elected, and of free and peaceful association to take part in the country’s political affairs, in the terms of the Constitution and the law.” In addition, the Law on the Federal Judiciary (hereinafter the “Law on the Judiciary”), in force at the time of the facts, had established since 1996 in its Article 186(III)(a) and (c), that the Electoral Tribunal had competence “[t]o decide definitively and irrefutably, disputes arising from: (a) Acts and decisions of the federal electoral authority other than those indicated in the preceding subparagraphs I and II [contestations relating to the federal elections for deputies and 34 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 19, para. 66; Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 26, para. 192, and Case of Yvon Neptune, supra note 19, para. 77. 35 Cf. supra notes 29 and 31. See also: Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency, supra note 25, para. 24.