37 associate for political purposes, which “clearly reveals Mexico’s intention regarding the scope of Article 23(2), because, in this reservation, it merely introduced one additional restriction to the limitations indicated in the provision” and that “it is beyond doubt that if Mexico had wished to introduce another limitation […], for example, that in order to be elected it was necessary to be postulated by a political party […,] the Convention only allowed [Mexico] to incorporate the limitations established in Article 23(2) into its electoral laws, and perhaps the one formulated in the reservation, but no other limitation”; the InterAmerican Commission did not apply its own criteria of making the interpretation most favorable to the individual and decided, regressively, to conclude that a monopoly political party system is not, in itself, contrary to the American Convention, based on a former decision and omitting the more recent precedents that offer more protection to the right to be elected. They underscored that the Commission’s 1998 Report on Mexico referred to the issue of independent candidacies and that Mexico had not complied with its recommendation to adopt the necessary measures to regulate the right to vote and to be elected, and to include the broadest and most participative access of candidates to the electoral process, as an element to consolidate democracy. 137. The State argued that the alleged violation of Article 23 is not part of the dispute in this case, because the Commission’s application refers “only to the alleged violation of Article 25 of the Convention” and that the Court “is not competent to hear abstract allegations of violation of the American Convention owing to supposed laws in force that have not been applied in specific cases.” It also argued that, in the instant case, Mr. Castañeda Gutman’s political rights had not been violated for the following reasons: (i) political rights are not absolute and can be restricted, provided the principles of lawfulness, necessity and proportionality in a democratic society are respected; (ii) the monopoly of the political parties to nominate candidates is based on the right of the States to provide themselves with their own specific political system and is not contrary to international law; therefore, it was not necessary to introduce a reservation concerning the postulation of candidacies by political parties either when ratifying the Convention or subsequently; (iii) a distinction should be made between direct limitations to political rights (such as exclusions based on gender or race) and the mechanisms that the States put in place for the exercise of political rights; (iv) the Yatama case is not applicable in this case, and (v) Human Rights Committee General Comment 25 does not refer to the monopoly of political parties to nominate candidates, but to the requirement that citizens should join specific parties in order to be elected; Article 175 of the Electoral Code does not establish the necessary membership of a citizen in a political party in order to postulate for elected public office, because the possibility and the right exists for a political party to postulate for elected office citizens who do not belong to it, a right that is frequently exercised; and (vi) the exclusivity of postulation by political parties is based on historical and practical factors for the organization of the electoral system within the Mexican social and economic context. * * * 138. The Court has established that the alleged victim, his next of kin or his representatives may allege different rights from those included in the Commission’s application, based on the facts presented by the Commission.48 139. Furthermore, the Court has established that the disputed law was applied in the 48 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 155; Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 165, para. 92; and Case of the Saramaka People, supra note 6, para. 27.