45 170. The Court observes that although the representatives of the alleged victim stated that the Yatama case and the instant case were analogous, they did not provide reasons or arguments that permitted affirming that the two cases shared certain relevant properties that could be classified as essential; thus allowing them to apply the same juridical consequence to both cases. Indeed, for a case to be analogous to another, it is necessary to prove that there is a similarity between the facts of the first case and the facts of the second, because the two cases share the same essential relevant properties, which allow the same juridical consequence to be applied in both cases. 171. The Court observes that it cannot be affirmed that the factual circumstances and the underlying juridical dispute in the Yatama case and the factual circumstances and the request of the alleged victim in the instant case are identical, in order to conclude that the juridical consequence of the Yatama case is applicable to this case. 172. The Yatama case dealt with individuals who belong to indigenous and ethnic communities of the Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua, who are different from the majority of the population, inter alia, based on their languages, customs and forms of organization, who were faced with serious difficulties which kept them in a vulnerable and marginal situation as regards taking part in public decisions in that State, and where the requirement to participate in politics by means of a political party translated into a form of organization that was alien to their practices, customs and traditions which prevented their candidates from participating in the respective municipal elections, without offering any alternative. To the contrary, the instant case deals with an individual who wished to postulate himself as an independent candidate, who did not allege or prove that he represented the interests of a vulnerable or marginalized group of society that was formally and materially prevented from acceding to any of the alternatives that the Mexican electoral system offered to take part in the election, and who had various appropriate alternatives to be postulated as a candidate (infra para. 202). 173. Consequently, the Court finds that this precedent does not adversely affect the general standards of international law, but affirms them to the extent that the existence of different electoral systems that are compatible with the Convention is possible. IV. The restriction of political rights in the instant case 174. With the exception of some rights that cannot be restricted in any circumstance, such as the right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, human rights are not absolute. As the Court has established previously, the establishment and application of requirements to exercise political rights is not, per se, an undue restriction of political rights.61 However, the power of the States to regulate or restrict rights is not discretional, but is limited by international law, which requires compliance with certain obligations that, if they are not respected, make the restriction unlawful and contrary to the American Convention. As established in Article 29(a) in fine of this instrument, no provision of the Convention shall be interpreted as restricting them to a greater extent than is provided for therein. 61 Cf. Case of Yatama, supra note 49, para. 206.