34 126. This 2002 opinion of the Supreme Court of Justice has been applied by the Electoral Tribunal on other occasions. For example, in February 2006, the TRIFE Superior Chamber applied the binding jurisprudence when Héctor Montoya Fernández alleged that Article 175 of COFIPE was unconstitutional because IFE had refused to register him as an independent candidate for the Presidency of the Republic: […] Therefore, the only way in which his claim could be accepted would be through non-application of Article 175(1) of the Federal Code on Electoral Institutions and Procedures. However, on the one hand, the General Council of the Federal Electoral Institute is not permitted to disapply the Article, because its powers do not allow this and, on the other hand, nor can this Superior Chamber disapply legal provisions, even when it considers them contrary to the Constitution because, in this regard, the Supreme Court of Justice issued the criteria under the headings: “ELECTORAL LAWS. THE ONLY MEANS OF CONTESTING THEM IS THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY PROCEEDING” and “ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL OF THE JUDICIARY. LACK OF COMPETENCE TO RULE ON THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF LAWS.” […].40 127. Lastly, the Supreme Court of Justice confirmed its 2002 case law in September 2007, when it concluded that it could not be modified “[…] because there had been no changes in the law or in the circumstances that gave rise to it.”41 128. Based on the above, although, prior to 2002, TRIFE delivered judgments in which it disapplied local laws contrary to the Constitution in specific cases, subsequent to the Supreme Court’s case law of May 2002, the Supreme Court decided definitively that TRIFE did not have competence to rule on the constitutionality of the laws in order to disapply them in specific cases. Therefore, TRIFE cannot decide a dispute filed against an act or decision of an electoral authority when the decision would imply ruling on the constitutionality of the law on which the act or decision was based. Moreover, it has already been mentioned that, following the 1996 constitutional reform, the only way to contest a federal electoral law was the unconstitutionality proceeding, which was a special remedy with restricted active legal standing. From the text of Article 105(II) of the Constitution, it can be concluded that, in order to file this action, only certain local or federal parliamentary fractions, the Prosecutor General (Procurador General de la República) and, following the 1996 constitutional reform, registered political parties have active legal capacity; therefore, individuals cannot file it.42 The special nature also arises from the effect of this remedy, which declares the invalidity of a law with general effect only when the decision has been adopted by a majority consisting of eight votes of the justices of the Supreme Court of Justice. Lastly, regarding the opportune procedural moment for filing this writ, it can only be filed within 30 natural days following the date of publication of the law in question. 129. Lastly, it is worth indicating that, although the State alleged that “[…] resorting to TRIFE would have signified […] an internal form of control that the laws conformed to the 40 Cf. Judgment SUP-JDC-67/2006 of the Superior Chamber of the Electoral Tribunal of the Federal Judiciary February 2, 2006 (the representatives’ final arguments brief, merits file, tome IV, folios 1130 and 1131). 41 Cf. Typed version of the sessions of September 4, 6 and 10, 2007, of the Plenary session of the Supreme Court of Justice in which the request to modify case law 2/2006 was decided (the representatives’ brief with arguments on preliminary objections, merits file, tome II, folio 438). 42 By constitutional reform published in the federal official gazette of September 14, 2006, the National Human Rights Commission was granted active legal standing to file actions of unconstitutionality against federal or local laws and international treaties that violate the human rights embodied in the Constitution, as were analogous organs in the federative entities to file this type of action in relation to local laws.