6 complementing the existence of the political parties and strengthening them, since they are a necessary means of representation and participation in a democratic society. In this perspective, it is perfectly legitimate and concordant with the letter and spirit of the Convention that, within the national system of laws, there are homogeneous norms that emphasize the participation of political parties in the electoral processes as well as regulations designed to strengthen their representative and democratic nature, without detriment to their independence from the State. In addition, it is legitimate that domestic laws should include legal provisions concerning “other political organizations,” aimed at facilitating the participation of specific sectors of society, as could be the case of the indigenous peoples. 28. The third component of political rights protected by Article 23 of the Convention stipulates that every citizen should “… have access, under general conditions of equality, to the public service of his country” (underlining added). This aspect of political rights has to be understood systematically in relation to both the other explicit components of the political rights contained in Article 23(1), and the rest of the Convention and the inter-American legal system, in particular Article 24 of the Convention which refers to the right to equality and non-discrimination. 29. In this regard, when considering the provision of Article 23 on the “general conditions of equality,” this should be referred to two aspects that can and should be understood concurrently and simultaneously. First, the norm establishes that it is necessary to guarantee access to public office to everyone “under general conditions of equality.” This means that specific measures should be promulgated to facilitate the access to public office of the sectors of the population that may face special disadvantages and, thus, inequality – as could be the case of the indigenous peoples. In this case, it has been proved that Nicaragua did not adopt such measures; to the contrary, the 2000 Electoral Act created obstacles to this access. 30. Second, this general provision on access to public service, consistent with Article 29 of the Convention should be interpreted not only in relation to appointments or designations by the authority but also with reference to the public service that is exercised by popular election. In other words, the Court does not accept a restrictive interpretation referring only to public office or positions derived from appointments and designations. This is, without doubt, the meaning of this provision that seeks, precisely, to stress the principle of equality in the specific sphere of public service. 31. The above should be read and interpreted in close connection with the provisions of Article 24 of the Convention as regards equality and nondiscrimination. As the judgment states, Article 24 of the Convention prohibits discrimination de facto and de jure with the obligation that this entails for the State to respect the said principle of equality and non-discrimination for all the rights embodied in the Convention and in all domestic laws that it adopts. In this regard, the provisions of Article 23(1)(c) are designed to emphasize the significance that the Convention accords to the principle of equality and non-discrimination in the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs. 32. Consequently, given the proven facts in this case in light of the reasoning derived from the provisions of Article 23(1)(c) concerning the general conditions of equality and of Article 24 concerning equality and non-discrimination, the State’s obligation not to tolerate practices or norms that could have a discriminatory effect is clear. This should not be understood as contrary to homogeneous rules and conditions for all of society and all citizens with regard to the full exercise of political rights.