72 in its arguments, indicated that “the electoral laws assign a jurisdictional function to the Council [...] and, consequently, it decided as a judicial body of final instance, pursuant to the Constitution in force.” 152. Decisions adopted by domestic bodies that could affect human rights, such as the right to political participation, should be duly ; otherwise, they would be arbitrary decisions.144 153. The decisions that the Supreme Electoral Council issued on electoral matters and which affected the political rights of the persons proposed by YATAMA as candidates to take part in the municipal elections of November 2000, should have been duly , which involved indicating the norms on which the requirements that YATAMA failed to comply with were based, the facts regarding non-compliance, and the consequences of non-compliance. 154. As has been proved (supra para. 124(46)), on July 18, 2000, the Supreme Electoral Council issued a resolution in which it indicated, inter alia, that the Coastal People Party (PPC), which headed the alliance with YATAMA in the RAAS (supra para. 124(38) and 124(39)), had not complied with the requirements for registering candidates. The Court has verified that this resolution makes no reference to noncompliance with requirements by YATAMA in the RAAS or in the RAAN, and this created uncertainty concerning the approval of the participation of its candidates. The Council did not notify this decision to YATAMA, even though it affected YATAMA, since the exclusion of the Coastal People Party (PPC) could have consequences for the participation of the YATAMA candidates in the RAAS. Moreover, it did not indicate that there was any problem for the participation of the YATAMA candidates in the RAAN. 155. Following this decision of July 18, 2000, the representatives of YATAMA sent several communications to the Supreme Electoral Council, in which they basically requested the Council to define the situation of its candidates, because YATAMA had not received any official communication with regard to the political participation of its candidates in the municipal elections that year (supra para. 124(47) to 124(50)). 156. The Supreme Electoral Council ruled on the political participation of the YATAMA candidates in the RAAS and in the RAAN on August 15, 2000, and resolved not to register this party’s candidates in the electoral process of November that year (supra para. 124(51)). 157. With regard to the participation of the candidates proposed by YATAMA in the RAAS, in the resolution of August 15, 2000, the Supreme Electoral Council declared: “Inadmissible, the request by YATAMA to register as candidates of this party, the candidates presented by the YATAMA/PPC Alliance in the South Atlantic Autonomous Region” (supra para. 124(51)(a)). No grounds for this decision were given. Furthermore, in the “Considering II” it indicated that “YATAMA [was] a legally constituted party, in full use of the rights established in the Electoral Act and, as such, c[ould] take part in the elections of November 2000, either in alliances or alone, provided it complied with the Electoral Act and the terms of the electoral calendar.” However, the Council stated that, since the Coastal People Party (PPC) did not have the percentage of signatures referred to in Article 77(7) of the Electoral Act, “the 144 Cf. García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 26, ECHR 1999-I; and Eur. Court H.R., Case of H. v. Belgium, Judgment of 30 November 1987, Series A no. 127-B, para. 53.