16 delegate. The Colombian delegate and the member of the Commission on Human Rights 17 presented objections. Nevertheless, the amendment was approved and it was added to the final text of Article 23. However, the reason or motivation for which the amendment was presented was not presented and the debate regarding it is unknown. Thus, it is not possible to conclude, with absolute clarity, the intent of the States with regard to the incorporation of said term in Article 23 of the American Convention. 17. From the means of interpretation referred to in the preceding paragraphs, it can be concluded that the term “only” of Article 23(2) of the Convention does not provide a restrictive list of possible reasons for a restriction or regulation of political rights. Similarly, the term “sentencing by a competent court in a criminal proceeding” does not necessarily assume that this may be the only type of proceeding that may be used to impose a restriction. Other judicial forums (such as the judicial electoral authority, for example) may have, in this way, legitimacy to act. What is clear and fundamental is that whatever the means used, it must be carried out with full respect to the guarantees established in the Convention, and moreover, be proportional and foreseeable. 18. In light of a evolutionary and systematic interpretation of Article 23(2) and heeding to the living nature of the Convention, whose interpretation must accompany the evolution of the times and current conditions of institutional development, what is important is that the authority be of a judicial nature, in a broad sense, and not restricted to a criminal court. In this case, the sanction was not imposed by a judicial authority. Proportionality and foreseability of the sanction imposed 19. Notwithstanding that the sanction of disqualification was not imposed by a judicial authority, in this case, the Court has also established the State’s responsibility for the violation to the obligation to provide cause, the right to defense, and the right to judicial protection that all stemmed from the imposition of the sanction of disqualification (paras. 149, 150, and 185). Specific arguments were not provided on the relevance of the facts, the level of responsibility, and the harm to the public good, all of which would have provided cause in a qualitative and quantitative manner to justify the magnitude of the sanction of disqualification and length of the sanction as the one imposed. Moreover, and considering the interpretation already stated of Article 23(2), it is, in my opinion, important to determine if in the exercise of its sanctioning power, the State heeded to the principles of proportionality and foreseeability. 20. In regard to the issue of proportionality of the sanction imposed by the Comptroller General to the detriment of Mr. Lopez Mendoza, what should first be noted is that given this involves a restriction on the right to passive suffrage, that is, the right to register as a candidate for an elective office, the paths used must be more strict and narrow. Among other reasons because in these cases it is not only the person who seeks to run for office, 16 “The delegate of Brazil (Carlos A. Dunshee de Abranches) proposed that the end of paragraph 2, 'as appropriate,' be deleted, and that 'or sentencing [,] by a competent court [,] in a criminal proceeding'” be added. Minutes and Documents of the Inter-American Specialized Conference on Human Rights. Minutes of the Thirteenth Session of the Commission "I", Doc 54, November 18, 1969, San Jose, Costa Rica, pg. 254. 17 "The DELEGATE OF COLOMBIA (Mr. Pedro Pablo Camargo) felt that if 'in criminal proceedings' was added, all political matters would to be subject to criminal prosecution and this would deny all other rights contained in section 2. A Member of the Human Rights Commission (Mr. Justino Jiménez de Arechaga) not[ed] that the variation between the text of the Project and the Working Group's proposal would raise sensitive issues with which care must be taken." Minutes and Documents of the Inter-American Specialized Conference on Human Rights. Minutes of the Thirteenth Session of the Commission "I", Doc 54, November 18, 1969, San Jose, Costa Rica, pg. 254. 4