75 168. The absence of an effective remedy to violations of the rights recognized in the Convention is itself a violation of the Convention by the State Party.147 169. For the State to comply with the provisions of Article 25 of the Convention, it is not enough that the recourses exist formally, but they must be effective;148 in other words, they must provide the individual with the real possibility of filing a remedy in the terms of this Article. The existence of this guarantee “is one of the basic pillars, not only of the American Convention, but also of the rule of law itself in a democratic society, in the terms of the Convention.”149 170. The general obligation that the State should adapt its domestic laws to the provisions of the Convention to guarantee the rights it embodies, which is established in Article 2, includes the issuance of rules and the development of practices leading to effective enforcement of the rights and freedoms embodied in the Convention, and also the adoption of measures to derogate norms and practices of any kind that entail a violation of the guarantees established in the Convention.150 This general obligation of the State Party implies that the measures of domestic law must be effective (the principle of effet utile), and to this end the State must adapt its actions to the protection norms of the Convention.151 171. Chapter VI of the Constitution de Nicaragua establishes an Electoral Power that is independent of the other three branches of government and whose maximum authority is the Supreme Electoral Council (Article 129). With regard to the resolutions of this Council concerning electoral matters, the Constitution establishes that ‘there shall be no ordinary or special recourse” (Article 173(14)), the Amparo Act stipulates that the application for amparo is inadmissible “against the resolutions issued on electoral matters” (Article 51(5)), and the Electoral Act establishes that “the petitioner groups or political parties may have recourse to the amparo procedure before the courts of justice against the final resolutions concerning political parties issued by the Supreme Electoral Council in the exercise of the powers that this law confers on it” (Article 76). 172. On August 30, 2000, Brooklyn Rivera and Centuriano Knight, YATAMA’s legal representatives filed before the Court of Appeal of the North Atlantic Autonomous Region (RAAN) (Civil Chamber, Bilwi), an application for administrative amparo (supra para. 124(55)), based on Article 23 of the Amparo Act in force, against the resolution 147 Cf. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, supra note 146, para. 113; Case of Ivcher Bronstein, supra note 141, para. 136; and Case of the Constitutional Court, supra note 141, para. 89. 148 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 135, para. 131; Case of Maritza Urrutia. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, para. 117; and Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 121. 149 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 10, para. 75; Case of Tibi, supra note 135, para. 131; and Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 5, para. 193. 150 Cf. Case of Caesar, supra note 11, para. 91; Case of Lori Berenson Mejía, supra note 11, para. 219; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 135, para. 206; and Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003. Series A No. 18, para. 78. 151 Cf. Case of Lori Berenson Mejía, supra note 11, para. 220; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 135, para. 205; and Case of Bulacio. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 142.