they argued that, in the Judgment, the Court had indicated that the said legislation was “contrary to the right to judicial protection” and, since the State has not amended it, it was failing to comply with the Judgment. In addition, they indicated that it was necessary to regulate satisfactorily “article 99 of the Constitution in order to include the authority of the [Electoral Tribunal] to declare the unconstitutionality of electoral laws in this specific case.” The representatives indicated that the State “has created more obstacles” by adding “a new cause of inadmissibility [for electoral appeals] in [article 10.1.f)] of the Law,” which signifies that “if a public entity […] asserts the unconstitutionality of a law in general terms and the Supreme Court of Justice, without analyzing the specific case, determines that this law is compatible with the Constitution, the individuals affected in specific cases by that law can no longer avail themselves of any remedy to contest the violation caused to their rights.” In addition, the representatives stressed that the 2011 reform of the Constitution, which specifies the obligation to interpret in keeping with the pro persona principle, “makes no changes as regards [what was previously established by] the legislation, because the pro persona principle was already recognized implicitly in [the] Constitution.” 12. Furthermore, the representatives emphasized that “the [sixth] operative paragraph of the Judgment requires the enactment of legislative reforms and not the demonstration of supposed progress in jurisprudence.” In this regard, they indicated that ��the fact that some competent courts have examined the merits of the dispute does not guarantee the nonrepetition of the human rights violations,” because “the Mexican Federal Judiciary is far from being consistent on issues of such importance.” In this regard, they underscored the current debate in the national Supreme Court of Justice on “whether or not there was a section of the Constitution where the human rights norms contained in the international treaties to which Mexico is a party could be found.” 13. The Commission indicated that it appreciated the efforts made by the State to continue adapting its domestic law by means of legal reforms and that “the judicial authorities with competence in electoral matters had opted for an interpretation of a norm in keeping with the Convention and the decision of the Inter-American Court in its Judgment.” However, it considered that the said efforts were insufficient, and that the information presented was not enough to conclude definitively that the reforms that had been made complied with the proposed objectives. In this regard, it considered that articles 10.1.a) and 80.d) of the General Law on the Mechanisms for Contesting Electoral Matters “should be […] annulled.” In addition, the Commission underlined “that if the Inter-American Court had found it sufficient to apply the mechanism of tacit derogation as the State [is claiming] […], based on the general principles of the supremacy of the Constitution and that the subsequent law annuls […] the previous one, it would not have ordered that the secondary legislation and the norms that regulate the protection proceedings be adapted to the constitutional reform.” 14. The Commission emphasized that, “in the decisions in the cases forwarded by the State […], it is true that an analysis was made of the merits of the issue raised without limiting the admissibility of the appeal owing to the fact that the individual had not been proposed by a political party.” It also underlined that “it is essential that State comply with the orders of the Inter-American Court in the terms established by the Court. In the instant case, the Inter-American Court ordered that the State continue to amend the legislation that was identified in the Judgment as being contrary to the right to judicial protection.” In addition, the Commission indicated that “if the Inter-American Court finds that it must assess the control of conformity with the Convention carried out by the judicial authorities as a way of complying with the decisions made in its judgment, sufficient information is required to prove, in terms of legal certainty, the existence of consolidated case law on the matter.” Regarding the latter, the Commission argued that “the information provided to date does not allow this conclusion to be reached, because it consists of a copy of a limited number of 5