3 and that, therefore, they have sovereignly agreed that this exercise is no longer only a matter of their exclusive internal, domestic jurisdiction. Thus, it can be affirmed that the Inter-American Democratic Charter was adopted in order to both safeguard duly and opportunely the full exercise of democracy and also, in the event that democracy was interrupted in a State of the Americas, ensure that this was promptly re-established. 2. That practical effect of the Inter-American Democratic Charter and, in particular, its Article 21,12 is founded, above all, on the provisions of Article 9(d) and (f), of the OAS Charter.13 In other words, this supposes that the States of the Americas are democratic; in actual fact, at the time of its adoption they were and, consequently, its provisions indicate the situations in which, in one way or another, they violate their obligation to exercise democracy and indicate that this should be restored as soon as possible. 3. In summary, the Inter-American Democratic Charter was signed to be applied; that is, to have practical effects and to be valid for all OAS Member States and for all the organs of the inter-American system, including, consequently, the Court. 4. It is in this perspective that the allusion made in the judgment to the coup d’état that occurred in Venezuela should be understood14 and, accordingly, it is appropriate to reiterate that the re-establishment of the rule of law following a coup d’état 15 does not, under any circumstance or pretext, authorize the legitimate authorities who have been reinstated in their positions to violate the human rights of those who presumably took part in that internationally wrongful act and, especially, to do this years after the coup and without have taken any legal action against such individuals on those grounds. c. The Court and the Inter-American Democratic Charter. 1. Regarding the authority of the Court to consider, in the cases submitted to it and that it hears, the conformity or disconformity of the State’s conduct with the InterAmerican Democratic Charter, it should be recalled that in the event of a violation of the obligation to exercise representative democracy, the latter establishes the participation of both the OAS political organs and the organs established in the Convention. 2. In the case of the political organs, they can adopt measures that may consist in granting the assistance requested by the State concerned, organizing visits to it, executing diplomatic procedures or suspending its participation in the OAS. In other words, these organs adopt decisions of a political nature if an OAS Member State violates the inter-American legal obligation to exercise democracy effectively. 3. Regarding the Convention, Article 8 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter, included in the chapter entitled “Democracy and Human Rights,” establishes that “[a]ny “When the special session of the General Assembly determines that there has been an unconstitutional interruption of the democratic order of a member state, and that diplomatic initiatives have failed, the special session shall take the decision to suspend said member state from the exercise of its right to participate in the OAS by an affirmative vote of two thirds of the member states in accordance with the Charter of the OAS. The suspension shall take effect immediately. 12 The suspended member state shall continue to fulfill its obligations to the Organization, in particular its human rights obligations. Notwithstanding the suspension of the member state, the Organization will maintain diplomatic initiatives to restore democracy in that state.” 13 Footnote No. 8. 14 Paras. 51, 52 and 60 of the judgment. 15 Para. 53 of the judgment.