52 Electoral Act, in order to register its candidates in the Region89 (supra para. 124(22)). According to the decisions of the Supreme Electoral Council, only the Constitutionalist Liberal Party (PLC) and the Conservative Party (PC) had submitted the required 3% of the signatures. In the resolution, the Supreme Electoral Council did not make any specific reference to YATAMA’s compliance with the requirements in the RAAN or in the RAAS. Also, in this resolution of July 18, 2000, the Supreme Electoral Council ruled on a request presented on July 21, 2000, by the PPC, objecting to the signature verification procedure and alleging “that the signatures with a ‘valid identity card number’ had not been compared with the information contained on the electoral roll [...] and the valid signatures had been verified illegally, despite the fact that more than the number of valid signatures required by the Electoral Act to participate in the municipal elections had already been submitted.”90 In addition to PPC, other political parties requested the Supreme Electoral Council to cancel ‘the signature verification procedure arguing that this [was] illegal,” because the only requirement in Article 77(7) of the 2000 Electoral Act was that the signatures should be “notarized” and it did not establish a signature verification procedure.91 The Supreme Electoral Council did not notify this resolution to YATAMA, and it did not grant this party, which was part of the PPC Alliance, the period of three days “to proceed to rectify the defects or substitute candidates,” as established in Article 84 of Electoral Act No. 331 of 2000 (supra para. 124(25).92 124(47) On July 31, 2000, Brooklyn Rivera, YATAMA’s legal representative, addressed a communication to the President of the Supreme Electoral Council, requesting that YATAMA should be authorized to participate in the RAAS, given that, in the last regional elections, “it ha[d] obtained more votes than the percentage required by law to be authorized to take part in elections in the two regions: RAAN and RAAS.” In this communication, the said legal representative indicated that, “since, to date, it had not received any official communication from the official [electoral] body, as a participating group, it [was] being affected because the communities and grass-roots sectors were becoming disheartened, and its rhythm of work in both autonomous regions was suffering.”93 124(48) YATAMA requested the Supreme Electoral Council to “register [this party] for the elections in the South Atlantic Autonomous Region (RAAS) under its own name, presenting [its] own list of candidates to the regional delegate of the Supreme Electoral Council[, …] communications to which it had never received a reply.”94 In one 89 Cf. resolution issued by the Supreme Electoral Council on July 18, 2000 (file of appendixes to the application, tome II, appendix 15(1), folio 596). 90 Cf. resolution issued by the Supreme Electoral Council on July 18, 2000 (file of appendixes to the application, tome II, appendix 15(1), folio 594). 91 Cf. resolution issued by the Supreme Electoral Council on July 18, 2000 (file of appendixes to the application, tome II, appendix 15(1), folio 592). 92 Cf. testimony of Brooklyn Rivera Bryan given before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing held on March 9, 2005; and testimony of John Alex Delio Bans given before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing held on March 9, 2005. 93 Cf. letter of July 31, 2000, from the legal representative of YATAMA to the President of the Supreme Electoral Council (file of appendixes to the application, tome II, appendix 16.1, folios 600). 94 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); and application for amparo filed by YATAMA’s representatives before ante the Civil and Labor Chamber of the Court of