43 give effect to the free expression of the will of the electors.”56 In particular, regarding the limitations to the right to be elected, the Committee indicated that: The right of persons to stand for election should not be limited unreasonably by requiring candidates to be members of parties or of specific parties. If a candidate is required to have a minimum number of supporters for nomination this requirement should be reasonable and not act as a barrier to candidacy […].57 164. The Court observes that this aspect of General Comment No. 25 refers to the obligation not to limit the exercise of these rights unreasonably by requiring candidates to be members of parties or to belong to specific parties. This is a factual assumption that is distinct from exclusive registration by the candidates’ parties. In the instant case, neither the norm that is alleged to be contrary to the Convention, nor other COFIPE norms establish as a legal requirement the need to be a member of a political party in order to register a candidacy and allows political parties to request the registration of candidacies of individuals who are not their members; that is, external candidacies. 165. In the regional sphere, the European Court of Human Rights, as of the very first case in which it was asked to rule on the right to vote and to be elected that can be inferred from Article 3 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms indicated that this provision does not create any obligation to introduce a specific system.58 It has also indicated that, “there are numerous ways of organizing and running electoral systems and a wealth of differences, inter alia, historical development, cultural diversity and political thought within [the States].”59 The European Court has emphasized the need to assess any electoral system “in the light of the political evolution of the country concerned; features that would be unacceptable in the context of one system may accordingly be justified in the context of another […].”60 166. The inter-American system also does not impose a specific electoral system or a specific means of exercising the rights to vote and to be elected. The American Convention establishes general guidelines that determine a minimum content of political rights and allows the States to regulate those rights, within the parameters established in the Convention, according to their historical, political, social and cultural needs, which may vary from one country to another and even within one country, at different historical moments. 167. Regarding the standards established by the Court, the representatives argued that, in the Yatama case the Inter-American Court concluded that “there is no provision in the American Convention that allows it to be established that citizens can only exercise the right to stand as candidates to elected office through a political party.” They stated that the Court should apply the principles of case law “in an evolutive, progressive and expansive manner […] not only to political organizations or to groups of citizens, but also to the citizen as an individual” such as Mr. Castañeda Gutman. Lastly, they stated that “[…] the contents of paragraphs 215 and 217 of the judgment in the Yatama case are perfectly applicable by analogy to the instant case.��� 56 Cf. United Nations, Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 25, The right to participate in public affairs, voting rights and the right of equal access to public service (Art. 25) of July 12, 1996, para. 21. 57 Cf. United Nations, Human Rights Committee, General Comment Nº 25, supra note 56, para. 17. 58 Cf. ECHR, Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v Belgium, judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A, No. 113, § 54. 59 Cf. ECHR, Zdanoka v Latvia, judgment of 16 March 2006 [GC], no. 58278/00, § 103. 60 Cf. ECHR, Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt, supra note 58, § 54, and Zdanoka, supra note 59, § 115.