55 office. However, none of [its] candidates were impeded from being nominated, and consequently the existing parties had not opposed them within the time limited established in Article 85 of the Electoral Act.” In addition, they stated that: Since [the Supreme Electoral Council] had published the list of [YATAMA] candidates in the North Atlantic Autonomous Region (RAAN), […] it [was] inconceivable that the resolution issued […] should conclude that the fact that the alliance was not accepted in the RAAS, [...] affected [its] candidates in the RAAN.” The representatives of YATAMA indicated that this “constituted a violation of the political rights of the coastal people, because the people of the Atlantic Coast were not being allowed to exercise their right to freedom of election and to be able to vote, thereby promoting the two-party system.”101 There is no evidence in the case file before the Court that the Supreme Electoral Council issued any decision on this appeal. 124(55) On August 30, 2000, Brooklyn Rivera and Centuriano Knight filed before the Civil and Labor Chamber of the Court of Appeal of the North Atlantic District, Puerto Cabezas, an application for administrative amparo, based on Article 23 of the Amparo Act in force, against the resolution issued by the Supreme Electoral Council on August 15, 2000 (supra para. 124(51); in it, they requested “the suspension of the resolution and its effects.” In this application they stated that:102 (a) The resolution of the Supreme Electoral Council concerning the participation of YATAMA in the RAAN “contradict[ed] the official receipts presented by the President del Electoral Council in the RAAN,” since YATAMA presented the list of candidates for mayors, deputy mayors and councilors on July 15, 2000; “consequently the alleged late presentation was unfounded”; (b) Regarding the resolution of the Supreme Electoral Council concerning the participation of YATAMA in the RAAS, “the Electoral Act did not prohibit [a party that] withdrew from a planned alliance from trying to take part in the municipal elections based on [its] own legal status”; (c) Article 84 of the Electoral Act establishes that when the Supreme Electoral Council “denies a request or rejects a candidate because they do not comply with legal requirements, it shall notify the political party or alliance of parties within the three days following the resolution, so that they may proceed to correct the defects or to substitute the candidates.” However, the Supreme Electoral Council “issued a resolution excluding YATAMA which [...] le[ft YATAMA] totally unable to act,” because the Council never notified its representatives “that an administrative procedure was being executed with regard to the registration of [the YATAMA candidates,” to enable them “to ensure [their] participation in the elections.”103 101 Cf. appeal for review of August 18, 2000, filed before the Supreme Electoral Council by YATAMA’s legal representatives (file of appendixes to the application, tome II, appendix 18, folio 605). 102 Cf. application for amparo filed by YATAMA’s legal representatives before the Civil and Labor Chamber of the Court of Appeal of the North Atlantic District, Puerto Cabezas (file of appendixes to the application, tome II, appendix 8(1), folio 530). 103 Cf. application for amparo filed by YATAMA’s legal representatives before the Civil and Labor Chamber of the Court of Appeal of the North Atlantic District, Puerto Cabezas (file of appendixes to the application, tome II, appendix 8(1), folio 530).