42 1 of the Convention, compliance that, as Article 1(1) states in general, should not be discriminatory. 159. In the sphere of political rights the guarantee obligation is especially relevant and is implemented, among other mechanisms, by the establishment of the organizational and institutional aspects of the electoral processes, and by the enactment of norms and the adoption of different types of measures to implement the rights and opportunities recognized in Article 23 of the Convention. In the absence of this action by the State, the right to vote and to be elected could simply not be exercised. The political and other rights established in the Convention, such as the right to judicial protection, are rights that “cannot be merely by virtue of the provisions that embody them, because they are, by their very nature, ineffectual without a detailed normative regulation, and even without a complex institutional, economic and human apparatus that endows them with the effectiveness they claim, as rights under the Convention[…]; if there were no electoral codes or law, electors’ lists, political parties, propaganda media and mobilization, polling stations, electoral boards, dates and times for exercising the vote, the right could simply not be exercised, due to its very nature; similarly, the right to judicial protection cannot be exercised unless there are courts that grant this right, and procedural norms that discipline it and make it possible.”55 160. These are the grounds that the Court considers should guide its ruling in this case, which refers to the way in which Mexico designed the system. The representatives argue that, “the Mexican legal framework violates the second paragraph of Article 23 of the Convention by making it an essential that, for a person to be able to take part in an election, his candidacy must be presented by a political party.” 161. As is evident from the foregoing, the Court finds that it is not possible to apply only the limitations of paragraph 2 of Article 23 of the American Convention to the electoral system established in a State. Nevertheless, the measures that the States adopt in order to ensure the exercise of the rights embodied in the Convention are not excluded from the Inter-American Court’s jurisdiction when a violation of the human rights established in the Convention is alleged. Consequently, the Court must examine whether one of these aspects connected with the organization and regulation of the electoral process and political rights, that is, the exclusivity of the nomination of candidates to federal office by political parties, entails an undue restriction of the human rights embodied in the Convention. * * * 162. Prior to this, the Court finds it necessary to indicate that, in general, international law does not impose a specific electoral system or a specific means of exercising the rights to vote and to be elected. This is clear from the norms that regulate political rights in both the universal and the regional sphere, and from the authorized interpretations made by their organs of application. 163. In the universal sphere, Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the wording of which is very similar to the provision in the American Convention, establishes broad parameters concerning the regulation of political rights. When interpreting this norm, the United Nations Human Rights Committee has stated that “the Covenant does not impose any specific electoral system,” but rather that any electoral system operating in a State “must be compatible with the rights protected by Article 25 and must guarantee and 55 Cf. Enforceability of the Right to Reply or Correction (Arts. 14(1), 1(1) and 2 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-7/86 of August 29, 1986. Series A No. 7. Separate opinion of Judge Rodolfo E. Piza Escalante para. 27.