73 number of municipalities in which YATAMA present[ed] candidates d[id] not attain the 80% referred to in Article 82(2) pursuant to Article 80 in fine of the Electoral Act.” The Council did not indicate the municipalities in which YATAMA was not represented. 158. With regard to the participation of the candidates proposed by YATAMA in the RAAN, the said resolution of August 15, 2000, declared that, “the candidates presented by this Organization in the North Atlantic [were] not registered because it had not complied with the time limit established in the Electoral Act” (supra para. 124(51)(b)). The “Considering clauses” contained no reference to the grounds for this decision. The Supreme Electoral Council did not indicate whether the “time limit established in the Electoral Act” that YATAMA “ha[d] not complied with” was the one for obtaining YATAMA’s legal status as a political party in order to take part in these elections (supra para. 124(23)), or the one established in the electoral calendar for the presentation of the list of candidates (supra para. 124(30)). 159. Given that, as has been proved, YATAMA had obtained its legal status within the time limit established by Article 77 of the Electoral Act in order to take part in the municipal elections of November 2000 (supra para. 124(23) and 124(28)), and that it had presented the lists of candidates within the time limit stipulated on the electoral calendar (supra para. 124(30), 124(31) and 124(39)), the Council should have indicated the specific requirement of the Electoral Act that YATAMA had failed to comply with, indicating the corresponding norm, so that it could be understood which “time limit established in the Electoral Act” YATAMA had not “complied with” and the reasons for that conclusion. 160. Compliance with the guarantee to justify the decisions adopted during the electoral process of November 2000 was especially important, since Electoral Act No. 331, which regulated this process, had entered into force approximately nine months before the date set for holding the elections. In other words, this was the first electoral process organized under this law, which embodied significant modifications with regard to the previous law, such as the elimination of the category of “public subscription association” and the new requirement that an individual could only participate as a candidate through a political party (supra para. 124(20)). 161. The Court considers that, by excluding the alleged victims from participating in the 2000 municipal elections, the Supreme Electoral Council did not respect the guarantee established in Article 84 of Electoral Act No. 331, which stipulates: When the request or notify this resolution, Supreme Electoral Council, pursuant to the provisions of this law, denies a rejects a candidate for failing to comply with the legal requirements, it shall to the political party or alliance of parties within the three days following the so that they may proceed to correct the defects or to substitute the candidates. 162. When deciding that YATAMA had not complied with the requirements for registering its candidates in the RAAS and the RAAN, the Supreme Electoral Council did not grant this organization the opportunity to correct the existing defect. Moreover, it did not notify to YATAMA the resolution issued by the Council on July 18, 2000 (supra para. 124(46)) that excluded the PCC from participating in the elections, even though PPC headed the alliance with YATAMA in the RAAS, an alliance that was pending authorization by the Supreme Electoral Council. One month later, the Council decided that the candidates proposed by YATAMA could not participate because it had not complied with all the respective requirements (supra para. 124(51)).