76 of August 15, 2000, in which the Supreme Electoral Council excluded YATAMA from the 2000 municipal elections (supra para. 124(51)). On October 25, 2000, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice ruled on the application for amparo that had been filed, declaring it inadmissible in limine litis (supra para. 124(61)) on the grounds that it did not have jurisdiction to deliberate on electoral matters, because the resolution issued by the Supreme Electoral Council referred to such matters and Article 173 of the Constitution established that no ordinary or special recourse was admissible against the resolutions of this body. In this ruling, the Constitutional Chamber also indicated that, pursuant to the judgment it had delivered in another case on July 1, 1999, the only resolutions of the Supreme Electoral Council that could be appealed against by an application for amparo were those relating to administrative matters concerning political parties. Nevertheless, it did not include any observations with regard to the differences that existed between matters concerning political parties and those concerning electoral issues, or to the reasons why the resolution that YATAMA was appealing was included in the latter category. 173. There was no judicial remedy against the resolution of the Supreme Electoral Council of August 15, 2000 (supra para. 124(51), so this could not be revised, even if it had been adopted without respecting the guarantees of the electoral procedure established in the Electoral Act or the minimum guarantees established in Article 8(1) of the Convention, applicable to the process. 174. Even though the Nicaraguan Constitution has established that the resolutions of the Supreme Electoral Council on electoral matters are not subject to ordinary or special recourses, this does not mean that this Council should not be subject to judicial controls, as are the other branches of government. The requirements arising from the principle of the independence of the powers of the State are not incompatible with the need to establish recourses or mechanisms to protect human rights. 175. Irrespective of the regulations that each State establishes for its supreme electoral body, the latter must be subject to some form of jurisdictional control that allows it to be determined whether its acts have been adopted respecting the minimum guarantees and rights established in the American Convention, and those established in its own laws; this is not incompatible with regard for the functions inherent in this body concerning electoral matters. This control is essential when the supreme electoral bodies such as the Supreme Electoral Council in Nicaragua, have broad powers, which exceed administrative faculties and which could be used, without an adequate control, to favor determined partisan objectives. In this sphere, this recourse must be simple and prompt, taking into account the characteristics of the electoral process (supra para. 150). 176. In view of the above, the Court concludes that the State violated the right to judicial protection embodied in Article 25(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of the candidates proposed by YATAMA to participate in the 2000 municipal elections, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. 177. With regard to the other allegations of the representatives, the Court does not find that the facts set out by the Commission in the instant case show that they constitute a violation of Article 25(2)(c) of the Convention. X VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 23 AND 24 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION