through administrative or disciplinary proceedings. A systematic evolutionary, and teleological interpretation, as well as an instrumental complimentary one of the working papers of the American Convention leads us to different conclusions. 7. The Court has carried out, in a different case, 1 a determination of the term “only,” and it established that it must be interpreted in 8. a systematic manner with Article 23(1) and the other provisions of the Convention and the basic principles that form it. In particular, it established that the reasons enshrined in this Article are not restrictive, but rather can be regulated by taking into account factors such as the historic, political, social, and cultural necessities of a society. 166. The inter-American system [does not] impose a specific electoral system or a specific means of exercising the rights to vote and to be elected. The American Convention establishes general guidelines that determine a minimum content of political rights and allows the States to regulate those rights, within the parameters established in the Convention, according to their historical, political, social and cultural needs, which may vary from one country to another and even within one country, at different historical moments. 9. The systematic analysis, taking into account the elements of this case, leads, first, to an analysis of this regulation of the American Convention in relation to other international, universal, and regional instruments, that regulate restrictions on political rights. In addition, it is necessary to consider the scope and repercussion of international instruments adopted in the framework of the fight against corruption, all of which came into effect after the American Convention in 1969. 10. In this order of analysis, it is noteworthy to mention that in the other international legal systems for the protection of human rights there is no specific reference to means or mechanisms that regulate the right to stand in an election or to passive suffrage. The universal system and other regional systems have also not stipulated a regulation that establishes that States can only restrict passive suffrage by way of “sentencing by a competent court in criminal proceedings.” 11. In the universal forum, Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political 2 Rights does not include possible reasons to restrict or regulate political rights similar to Article 23(2) of the Convention. It does establish that these rights may not be limited by “unreasonable restrictions.” The European Convention, in Article 3 of Protocol 1,3 only establishes the obligation to guarantee “free elections.” In some cases, the European Court Case of Castañeda Gutman V. México. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184. 1 2 Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights establishes that, “[e]very citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions: (a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives; (b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors; (c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.” 3 Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (right to free elections) states that “[t]he High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.” 2