30 113. After examining the judgment of the TRIFE Superior Chamber of July 6, 2007, deciding the Hank Rhon case, to which the State referred during the public hearing, the Court observes that, although the judicial action was filed by the person with active legal standing, in other words, the citizen on his own behalf and individually, this citizen complied with the condition that he was “proposed by a political party” referred to in Article 80 of the Law on Contesting Electoral Matters. In that case, a coalition of political parties known as Alianza para que Vivamos Mejor [Alliance for a Better Life] requested the registration of this individual as a candidate for the governorship of a state of the Federation, and this registration was granted by a decision of the State Electoral Council of the Baja California State Electoral Institute and revoked by the Federal Electoral Tribunal of the Judiciary of that federal entity. That Tribunal’s revocation of the decision to register the candidate proposed by the coalition of political parties was an act of authority that the said individual contested before TRIFE, by means of a judicial action for the protection of political and electoral rights. Although the State Electoral Tribunal revoked the decision of the electoral authority granting the registration, this ruling could not be considered firm until TRIFE decided the action for the protection of political and electoral rights. As can be seen from the judgment, TRIFE confirmed that Hank Rhon complied with the factual conditions when it ruled that “the decision to register Jorge Hank Rhon as a candidate for governor of the state of Baja California, postulated by the coalition Alianza para que Vivamos Mejor is confirmed […]” (italics added).33 114. In the instant case, as a condition for the admissibility of the judicial action for the protection of political and electoral rights, the Law on Contesting Electoral Matters required that Mr. Castañeda Gutman would have to have been postulated by a political party in order to claim a violation of the political right to be elected, in relation to the registration of his candidacy. Added to this, in this case, there was no other remedy for the alleged victim, who had not been postulated by a political party, to claim the alleged violation of his political right to be elected (infra para. 131). b) Effectiveness of the recourse 115. The Commission indicated that the grounds for the IFE administrative act rejecting the alleged victim’s registration were the application of Article 175 of the COFIPE, so that the only way to declare that this Article was inapplicable to the specific case was by examining its constitutionality. In other words, to declare this Article inapplicable to the specific case, it was necessary to consider it contrary to the Constitution. However, the Mexican legal system did not include a mechanism for private individuals such as Mr. Castañeda Gutman to question the constitutionality of the electoral laws. According to the Commission, the Supreme Court’s negative decision on the amparo procedure ended definitively the alleged victim’s hope to receive an opportune determination of his rights. 116. The representatives argued that the Constitution considers that the action for amparo is the only means of constitutional control to ensure the citizen the validity and effectiveness of his constitutional guarantees when the authorities violate them. Article 10 of the Law on Contesting Electoral Matters indicates that the mechanisms for contesting electoral matters are inadmissible when the intention is to contest the constitutionality of federal and local laws. They alleged that none of the provisions referred to by the State give the Electoral Tribunal the express competence to hear contestations of the electoral laws. They also indicated that “the power to decide on contradictions between the electoral norms and the Constitution is clearly limited by constitutional mandate to the plenary session of 33 Cf. Judgment SUP-JDC-695/2007 of the Superior Chamber of the Electoral Tribunal of the Federal Judiciary of July 6, 2007 (file of appendixs to the answer to the application, tome II, appendix 2, folio 1640).