52 of the institutions to the people, in brief, on strengthening and improving democracy. Civil society and the State have the fundamental responsibility, which cannot be waived, to carry out this discussion and make proposals to reverse the situation. In this regard, the States must assess the measures that will strengthen political rights and democracy according to their particular historical and political evolution, and independent candidacies may be one among many of these mechanisms. * * * 205. Based on the foregoing arguments, the Court does not find that, in the instant case, it has been proved that the system of registering candidacies for elected office by political parties constitutes an unlawful restriction to regulate the right to be elected established in Article 23(1)(b) of the American Convention and, consequently, has not verified a violation of Article 23 thereof. ARTICLE 24 (RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION)67 IN RELATION TO ARTICLES 1(1) (OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS) AND 2 (DOMESTIC LEGAL EFFECTS) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION 206. The Inter-American Commission did not find that there had been a violation of Article 24 of the American Convention in its Report on admissibility and merits and, consequently, did not allege the violation of the right to equal protection before the law before the Court. 207. Among other arguments, the representatives indicated that Article 175 of the COFIPE “[…] contains restrictions, that are not only excessive but also unnecessary in a society such as that of Mexico, which claims to be democratic” and indicated that “the states of Sonora and Yucatán have electoral laws that allow independent candidacies, and the Supreme Court of Justice has considered them permissible under the Mexican Constitution.” They stated that “it is not possible to prove that the circumstances in Yucatán and Sonora are so different from those of Coahuila or Campeche, or of the whole of Mexico, for it to be necessary, useful and opportune in order to protect public interest to prohibit independent candidacies at the federal level or in Nuevo León and Chiapas, and consider that this is not so in Yucatán and Sonora, where they are permitted.” They argued that the State “does not treat its candidates equally in equal circumstances, which is contrary to the principle embodied in the right to equal protection before the law, established in Article 24 of the American Convention” and that “this differentiated and unjustified treatment produced a specific violation to [Mr. Castañeda Gutman’s] detriment […], because he was unable to register himself as a candidate without a party for the federal elections of July 2, 2006.” In brief, the representatives maintained that, in addition to violating the right to be elected established in Article 23 of the American Convention, the exclusivity of registration of candidacies by political parties violated the right to equality embodied in Article 24 of this instrument. 208. The State affirmed, among other arguments, that “the harm to equality established in Article 24 arises for those who are or who place themselves in the same factual situation that makes the normative hypothesis applicable in its sphere of effectiveness,” so that “the 67 Article 24. Right to equal protection. All persons are equal before the law. Consequently, they are entitled, without discrimination, to equal protection of the law.