70 (i) The State left the alleged victims in this case defenseless and violated their right to a “prompt and effective recourse” by failing to provide for a means of “contesting the resolutions of the Supreme Electoral Council.” 144. Arguments of the State (a) In the case of YATAMA, the “procedure [established in the Electoral Act] was not applicable, because it was not rejecting one candidate in particular; it was not denying a request for registration of candidates, but rather the YATAMA political party did not comply with the requirements for the presentation of candidates, according to title VI of the Electoral Act”; (b) YATAMA did not comply with the provisions of Article 77 of the Electoral Act, because it requested that the candidates presented by the political alliance be registered on its behalf, and this request should have been submitted to the Supreme Electoral Council; (c) The Supreme Electoral Council decided that “of the political parties that presented voters’ signatures, in accordance with Article 77 [of the] Electoral Act, only those presented by the Constitutionalist Liberal Party (PLC) and the Conservative Party (PC) amounted to the 3% referred to in the said Article”; (d) “Owing to the dissolution of the political alliance it had formed, the YATAMA political party did not comply with Article 82(2) of the Electoral Act, which requires that, for the municipal elections, candidates must be registered in at least 80% of the municipalities”; (e) The resolution issued by the Supreme Electoral Council on August 15, 2000, “is of a strictly electoral content and matter” and “there is no ordinary or special recourse” against this type of decision (Articles 173 of the Constitution, 1 of the Electoral Act, and 51(5) of the Amparo Act). The Supreme Court of Justice of Nicaragua has stated that there is no recourse against resolutions of the Supreme Electoral Council on electoral matters; (f) The YATAMA party based its application for amparo on Article 76 of the Electoral Act, which stipulates that this recourse is admissible before the courts of justice against resolutions that the Supreme Electoral Council issues with regard to political parties. However, the resolution issued on August 15, 2000, by the Supreme Electoral Council, is strictly electoral in nature and does not refer to political parties. Matters relating to political parties are regulated in “paragraphs 17, 18 and 19” of Article 10 of the Electoral Act; and (g) The representatives indicated that the procedure established in “Article 37 and ff.” was not followed, but they did not say that Article 51(5) of the Amparo Act declares that this recourse is inadmissible against resolutions of the Supreme Electoral Council on electoral matters. Considerations of the Court 145. Article 8(1) of the Convention indicates that: Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.