74 163. On October 30, 2000, the Supreme Electoral Council addressed itself “to the population in general and to the international community to inform them [... t]hat [...] the political party [...] YATAMA had been granted legal status, which retained all its legal effects,” and that this regional political party “c[ould] take part and present candidates in its respective Autonomous Regions in the elections of November [2001]” (supra para. 124(62)). This action of the Supreme Electoral Council is surprising and even contrary to the provisions of Electoral Act No. 331, which establishes as a cause for cancellation of the legal status of a political party that it “does not take part in the elections that are called” (art. 74(4)). On the one hand, the Council decides that the candidates proposed by YATAMA may not participate in the elections of November 2000 (supra para. 124(51)), which would result in the cancellation of its legal status as a political party and, on the other hand, it issues a communication indicating that YATAMA retains its legal status as a party. 164. Based on these findings, the Court concludes that the decisions adopted by the Supreme Electoral Council, which affected the political participation of the candidates proposed by YATAMA for the municipal elections of November 2000, were not duly , nor were they adapted to the parameters established in Article 8(1) of the American Convention, so that the State violated the judicial guarantees embodied in this Article in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of the said candidates. 2) Right to a simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, embodied in Article 25(1) of the Convention 165. Article 25(1) of the Convention indicates that: 1. Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the State concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 166. Article 2 establishes that: Where the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms. 167. The safeguard of the individual in the face of the arbitrary exercise of the powers of the State is the primary purpose of the international protection of human rights.145 The inexistence of effective domestic remedies places the individual in a situation of defenselessness. Article 25(1) of the Convention has established, in broad terms: The obligation of the States to provide to all persons within their jurisdiction, an effective judicial remedy to violations of their fundamental rights. It provides, moreover, for the application of the guarantee recognized therein not only to the rights contained in the Convention, but also to those recognized by the Constitution and laws.146 145 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 135, para. 130; Case of the “Five Pensioners”. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 126; and Case of the Constitutional Court, supra note 141, para. 89. 146 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 135, para. 130; Cantos case. Judgment of November 28, 2002. Series C No. 97, para. 52; Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 111; and Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency, supra note 141, para. 23.