47 181. Contrary to other rights that, in the Article embodying them, specifically establish the legitimate purposes that could justify restrictions to a right, Article 23 of the Convention does not explicitly establish the legitimate causes or permitted purposes by which the law may regulate political rights. Indeed, this Article merely establishes certain aspects or reasons (such as, civil or mental capacity and age) on the basis of which political rights may be regulated in relation to their titleholders, but does not determine explicitly either the purposes or the specific restrictions that will necessarily have to be imposed when designing an electoral system, such as electoral districts and others. However, the legitimate goals that the restrictions should pursue arise from the obligations that can be inferred from Article 23(1) of the Convention, which the Court referred to above. 182. Mexico has invoked some reasons to maintain that the system in operation in that State is a mechanism for the exercise of political rights that conforms to the corresponding international standards, in terms of lawfulness, necessity and proportionality, and that this is clear from the COFIPE. Article 175 of this Code, which establishes that “only the national political parties have the right to request the registration of candidates to elected office,” regulates Article 41 of the Constitution of the United Mexican States which stipulates that “the purpose of political parties is to promote the participation of the people in democratic life, to contribute to the integration of the national representation and, as citizen organizations, to enable them to have access to the conduct of public affairs, in accordance with their programs, principles and ideas, and by means of free, secret and direct suffrage […].” 183. The Court considers that Article 175 of the COFIPE, which is being examined, was designed to organize the electoral process and the access of citizens to the exercise of public office under equal conditions and effectively. This objective is essential for the exercise of the rights to vote and to be elected in genuine periodic elections, by universal and equal suffrage and by secret ballot that guarantees the free expression of the will of the voters, in keeping with Article 23 of the American Convention. 184. Nevertheless, the fact that a measure is designed to achieve a purpose permitted by the Convention does not imply that it is necessary or proportionate, and the Court will examine this below. 3) Necessity in a democratic society and proportionality of the restrictive measure 185. Under the inter-American system there is a third requirement that must be met in order to consider that the restriction of a right is compatible with the American Convention. The Inter-American Court has stated that, for a restriction to be permitted in light of the Convention, it must be necessary for a democratic society. The Court has incorporated this requirement, which the American Convention has established explicitly in relation to certain rights (of assembly: Article 15; of association: Article 16; of movement: Article 22), as a criterion for interpretation and as a requirement that characterizes restrictions to the rights established in the Convention, including political rights.65 186. To evaluate whether the restrictive measures being examined complies with this requirement, the Court must assess whether: (a) it fulfills an urgent social need; in other words, that it is designed to fulfill an essential public interest; (b) it is the measure that least restricts the protected rights, and (c) it is closely adapted to achieving the legitimate purpose. 65 Cf. Case of Yatama, supra note 49, para. 206 and ff.