7 20. Owing to this decision by the electoral administrative body, Mr. Castañeda Gutman had recourse to the courts where this decision was considered first by the Seventh District Administrative Judge of the Federal District, under an application for amparo filed by the alleged victim. This judge considered his competence to hear the unconstitutionality of certain provisions of the COFIPE contested by the alleged victim and the official communication of the IFE Privileges and Political Parties Directorate of March 11, 2004, as a specific act enforcing the contested provisions. The Seventh District Administrative Judge of the Federal District established that it was necessary to determine whether an application for amparo was admissible when claiming that substantive rights relating to political rights had been affected owing to a specific enforcing an electoral law, considering that the said official communication constituted the specific act enforcing the law. Similarly, the Supreme Court of Justice, when examining the issue, considered that this action was the act enforcing the law and decided to dismiss the case “[…] in the action for amparo filed by Jorge Castañeda Gutman regarding the specific act of enforcement contained in official communication No. DEPPP/DPPF/569/04 of March 11, 2004, issued by the Executive Director of Privileges and Political Parties of the Federal Electoral Institute.” 21. The Court observes that Mr. Castañeda Gutman submitted his request for registration as a candidate to IFE; that is, to the administrative body which, according to the law (Federal Code for Electoral Institutions and Procedures), is the authority responsible for receiving requests for the registration of candidacies. On March 11, 2004, the IFE Privileges and Political Parties Directorate informed the applicant that, under the provisions of Article 175 of the said Code “the right to be postulated for and elected to an elected public office at the federal level, can only be exercised through one of the national political parties.” It also informed him that paragraph 1(e) of Article 177 of the Code established that the time frame for the registration of candidacies for President of the United Mexican States was from January 1 to 15 of the year of the election. This authority concluded that, on this basis, “it [was] not possible to accept [the] request as presented”; this decision was legally contested by Mr. Castañeda Gutman and revised by local courts. Indeed, the Court observes that the domestic judicial authorities themselves considered the decision of the Federal Electoral Institute to be an act enforcing the law and, on this basis, they conducted the pertinent hearing (supra para. 20). 22. The Court considers that, irrespective of whether or not the request was made outside the legal time frame for the registration of candidacies submitted by political parties, the decision of IFE not to accept the alleged victim’s request constituted, for the effects of this Court’s competence, an act enforcing the law, since this negative was based, first, on the provisions of Article 177 of the COFIPE concerning the legal time frames for the registration of candidacies and, second, on the provisions of Article 175 of COFIPE, concerning candidacies by means of political parties, and this authority had indicated the legal impossibility of accepting Mr. Castañeda Gutman’s request. This decision, based on the constitutional and legal provisions that regulate the matter, issued by the competent administrative authority hat ruled on the legal issue filed before it, with the specific and concrete effect of not allowing the registration of the candidacy, was the act enforcing the law, and was even considered as such by the domestic courts. Based on the above, the Court rejects this preliminary objection. B) SECOND PRELIMINARY OBJECTION Absence of the alleged victim in the electoral process that began in October 2005