American Court ordered the state to establish an effective legal remedy; nevertheless, Nicaragua has still not adjusted its domestic law accordingly. B. State 13. As background to the case, the state of Nicaragua pointed out that in Nicaragua democracy is exercised directly, on the basis of a participatory and representative approach, as illustrated in the 19 electoral processes and more than 45 elections leading to the rotation of political and ideological schools of thought to be at the helm of government. 14. Specifically regarding the alleged victim, it stressed that none of his rights were violated and that the Political Constitution guarantees a level playing field for Nicaraguans to exercise their political rights. It states that evidence for this can be found in the alleged victim’s registration as a presidential candidate running in the elections of 2011. 15. As for the alleged victim’s argument that he registered as a presidential candidate bearing in mind that President Ortega would not be able to participate, it states that this is not true because he was aware of the judgment issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of October 19, 2009, upheld by the September 30, 2010 ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice, which declared that Article 147 of the Constitution was nonapplicable and authorized the incumbent President to be reelected. It contended that, regarding this, when the 2011 elections were convened on October 28, 2010, the constitutional provisions on the ban of reelection were devoid of any standing. 16. Furthermore, with respect to the right to reelection, the state alleged that the 1987 Constitution did not provide any norms or principles for the banning of reelection and it was on the basis of the constitutional amendment of 1995 that the ban on reelections was introduced with Article 147. It stated that the incorporation of this provision led to a contradiction in the Constitution as Articles 27, 47, 48, 50, and 51 enshrine the principle of absolute equality before the law for all citizens. It concluded that Article 147 undermined key values and constitutional principles of the Nicaraguan nation and that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of September 30, 2010 observed key principles of international law regarding the equality of all citizens. It states that the provisions of the 1987 Constitution, the Law on Elections, and the principle of equality before the law were the grounds substantiating President Ortega’s bid for the presidency in 2011. 17. Furthermore, the state underlined that the assertion made by the petitioner that the elections had been an “act of robbery” is slanderous because the OAS itself, in its electoral observation report, had recognized the results, and therefore the petitioner must prove his “rash” statement. It also indicated that there are no material damages to be provided to the alleged victim because the party for which he participated in the 2011 elections, received a sizeable reimbursement, an amount higher than what it had spent for the electoral process. 18. As for the law, it argued that it did not violate the right to a fair trial. It alleged that the guarantees of due process of law and access to effective legal remedy are governed by Article 34 of the Constitution and that the judgment of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of October 19, 2009 upheld by the plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice on September 30, 2010 was duly motivated to rule that Article 147 of the Constitution was nonapplicable, as a result of which there was no violation of the right to a fair trial. It added that the candidacy of the alleged victim was duly registered, on the same footing as those of the remaining candidates. 19. The state argued that allowing President Ortega’s political participation in the 2011 elections did not violate the alleged victim’s political rights. Regarding this, it stated that the political rights of Nicaraguan citizens are recognized in the Constitution and the only limitation that can be imposed is based on age. It added that it is the state’s obligation to remove obstacles that in fact prevent equality among Nicaraguans and their participation in the country’s political, economic, and social life. It concluded that it is the sovereign people who