dismissed the remedy challenging the candidacy by declaring that the presidential candidate José Daniel Ortega Saavedra had been duly registered and appeared in the register for the elections of 2011. 6. The petitioner indicated that the CSE’s ruling was based on a judgment issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on October 19, 2009, whereby said court ascertained that restricting the number of presidential terms of office that a person could serve constituted a violation of the right to equality and declared that Article 147(a) and (b) of the Constitution were nonapplicable and ordered the CSE to certify President Ortega and the other citizens who had filed an appeal for protection on constitutional grounds (amparo) as citizens eligible to participate in the 2011 elections. This ruling was again upheld by the plenary chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on September 30, 2010. 7. The petitioner stated that the registration of President Ortega, on the basis of the above-mentioned rulings, violated the principle of constitutional supremacy, bearing in mind that said rules prevailed over the constitutional provision referring to the electoral system. He underscored that Article 182 of the Constitution of Nicaragua provides that laws, treaties, orders, or provisions that run counter to or alter the provisions of the Constitution shall have no standing whatsoever. He also established that the Constitution envisages stringent mechanisms whereby its contents can be amended, and the judicial branch of government is not included among the institutions that can alter the Constitution, let alone in response to an appeal for protection on constitutional grounds (amparo). He indicated that the above-mentioned judgments cannot have any effect to amend the Constitution, let alone to modify the electoral system provided for in the Constitution. 8. Specifically, in terms of the law, the petitioner argued that the right to a fair trial, political rights, the right to judicial protection, and the right to adopt provisions under domestic law had been violated. Regarding the right to a fair trial, he argued that said right was violated because the CSE’s ruling upholding President Ortega’s candidacy is groundless and is confined to indicating that its ruling is based on the judgment of the Supreme Court of Nicaragua of September 30, 2010, without specifying why said judgment should prevail over the express wording of Nicaragua’s Constitution. 9. Likewise, in connection with judicial guarantees, he alleged that the Supreme Electoral Court lacked independence and impartiality and pointed out that said institution was subject to political interference. He stated that, after the CSE’s ruling, in 2014 the National Assembly of Nicaragua adopted the amendment to Articles 146 and 147 of the Constitution, authorizing indefinite reelection and enacting measures such as the right to rule by decree. He alleged that it was a demonstration of how the executive branch of government was coopting powers. He added that, in 2016, the government abolished opposition political parties, including that of the alleged victim, by replacing the legitimate representatives of said political parties as established by their statutes. 10. The petitioner also contended that political rights were violated, in terms of the right to participate on equal terms. Regarding this, he stated that the CSE registered President Ortega’s candidacy in breach of Article 147 of the Constitution and that said registration changed the rules governing the electoral process. He added that, by virtue of the principle of equality, there would no reason to grant President Ortega an exceptional status with respect to compliance with the Constitution. 11. The petitioner explained that, according to the inter-American system, the constraints on reelections were aimed at observing the principle of proportionality. Regarding this, he stated that the limits on presidential terms of office are geared to preventing the indefinite consolidation of power of incumbent presidents. He therefore alleged that it is a measure aimed at achieving the general goal of ensuring freedom and equality of opportunities for all citizens. 12. Finally, he argued there was a violation of the right to judicial protection and the duty of adopting provisions under domestic law, bearing in mind that there are no effective remedies to challenge the CSE’s rulings. Regarding this, he stated that, according to the Constitution, it was not possible to file ordinary or extraordinary remedies against the CSE’s rulings. He stressed that, in the case of Yatama v. Nicaragua, the Inter-