3 a legal norm on the basis that it is unconstitutional in proceedings for the protection of political and electoral rights. The State indicated that these amendments were sufficient “for the Court to declare that the Mexican State has complied fully with the judgment.” In addition, it referred to different cases, several of which had been filed by private individuals, in which both the Superior Chamber and the Regional Chambers of the Electoral Court had declared electoral norms non-applicable that were contrary to the Constitution; “thus implementing the amendments to article 99 of the Constitution and to the secondary legislation.” Regarding the observations of the representatives, the State added that: (i) neither the changes to article 80(1)(d) of the General Law on the procedure for filing challenges concerning electoral matters (LGSMIME), nor the annulment of paragraph VII of article 73 of the Amparo Law, were the result of the judgment, and (ii) regarding the amendment of article 10(1)(a) of the LGSMIME, that this provisions had been tacitly annulled by the criteria of “constitutional supremacy” and of “subsequent law, annuls previous law,” and also “it was not a matter included in the judgment.” Based on the foregoing, the State asked the Court to “declare that the sixth operative paragraph of the judgment had been complied with […] and to determine that the respective monitoring proceedings had concluded.” 8. The representatives considered that Mexico was failing to comply with the judgment by maintaining in force articles 10(1)(a) and 80(1)(d) of the LGSMIME and 73.VII of the Amparo Law, and by having “added new grounds for dismissing the remedy for the protection of electoral rights” by article 10(1)(f) of the LGSMIME. Regarding the alleged tacit annulment of article 10(1)(a), they stated that, in one of the cases cited by the State, the Judiciary’s Electoral Court considered that it remained in force, and used it as grounds for declaring the petition irreceivable. They indicated that the criteria of “constitutional supremacy” and of “subsequent law annuls previous law” “are interpretative criteria, but do not provide legal certainty or security.” Furthermore, they indicated that the case law mentioned by the State reveals “significant progress in [the] system of access to justice by citizens who consider that their political and electoral rights have been violated.” Nevertheless, they do not reveal that the said article 80(1)(d) has ceased to be a barrier to access to justice by those who seek protection for their right to be elected, even though they have not been proposed by a political party. They considered that “according to the judgment, the State has the obligation to annul the article on the basis that it violates the right of access to justice, rather than permitting it to remain in the system.” With regard to article 73.VII of the Amparo Law, they stated that the only remedy to protect a citizen who alleges that his right to be elected has been violated, if his candidacy has not be proposed by a political party, would be the application for amparo, which is also irreceivable in the case of electoral matters, since the said article has not been annulled. They concluded that, “not only has the State […] failed to comply with the requirements of the judgment, but it has adopted regressive measures that raise further barriers to the exercise of the right to judicial protection in political-electoral matters” and asked the Court to “continue monitoring full compliance with the judgment and to keep open the instant case until the State has complied fully with all aspects of it.” The Commission stated that it “appreciates the efforts made by the State to continue 9. adapting its domestic law by way of the legal reforms described in its brief,” because it “considers that […] this represents an important step […] towards compliance with the judgment.” However, it considered that these efforts were insufficient and that the information presented was inadequate to conclude definitively that the reforms carried out comply with the proposed objectives. It indicated that “article 80(1)(d) of the LGSMIME was amended owing to the need to eliminate membership in a political party as a factual procedural requirement for the protection proceeding, so that any citizen can accede to it, if they consider that their right to be elected has been violated”; furthermore, it stressed that