21. In addition, with regard to the limitations verified in the Judgment in relation to the accessibility of the remedy (supra considering paragraph 15), this Court underscores that there is no evidence in the case file that, following notification of the Judgment, access to the protection proceedings has been restricted in the case of independent candidates who allege the violation of their right to be elected, in keeping with the provisions of the Judgment. To the contrary, from the information provided to the case file, the Court notes that in seven decisions issued between June 2009 and August 2011, the Superior Chamber and the Regional Chambers of the Electoral Tribunal did not consider that the condition of being an independent candidate was a reason for the inadmissibility of protection proceedings in which the violation of the right to be elected was alleged. 22 In this regard, this Court underlines that in a judgment delivered in the protection proceedings filed by Héctor Montoya Fernández on August 26, 2011, the Superior Chamber, carrying out a control of conformity with the Convention, decided that: In this matter it is clear that the citizen requested his registration as an “independent candidate”; thus, no petition in this regard was presented by a national political party. This circumstance cannot be a valid justification for considering that the [protection] proceedings are inadmissible, because the essential issue is that the violation of the right to be a candidate for elected office is alleged, as corroborated by the text of the Constitution (article 99, section V), in which no material or substantial requirements are indicated for the admissibility of the contestation mechanism, except in the case of violations committed by political parties. 23 22. The Court highlights that this current judicial practice reveals that, in specific cases, in which independent candidates have contested an infringement of their right to be elected, the cause for inadmissibility established in the Electoral Contestation Law to access the politicoelectoral remedy examined in the Judgment has not been applied. 24 and Antonio Carbia Gutiérrez (monitoring compliance file, tome I, folios 253, 285 and 286), and Judgment delivered by The Superior Chamber on December 23, 2009, in case SUP-JDC-3054/2009 concerning Horacio Culebro Borrayas (monitoring compliance file, tome II, folios 988, 991 and 992). The State also forwarded the Judgment delivered by the Superior Chamber on March 11, 2004, in case SUP-JDC-025/2004 concerning Jesús Gutiérrez Cuéllar. However, the said judgment was issued before the 2007 constitutional reform, so that this Court will not take it into account. 22 Cf. Judgment delivered by the Regional Chamber of the Electoral Tribunal of the Federal Judiciary corresponding to the Fourth Plurinominal Circumscription on June 2, 2009, in case SDF-JDC-190/2009 concerning Elisa de Anda Madrazo and Antonio Carbia Gutiérrez (monitoring compliance file, tome I, folios 253 and 273); Judgment delivered by the Regional Chamber of the Electoral Tribunal of the Federal Judiciary corresponding to the Fourth Plurinominal Circumscription on June 2, 2009, in case SDF-JDC-192/2009 concerning Parménides Ortiz-Cano (monitoring compliance file, tome I, folios 289 and 291); Judgment delivered by the Superior Chamber on June 16, 2010, in case SUP-JDC-155/2010 concerning José Luis González Meza (monitoring compliance file, tome II, folios 995 and 997); Judgment delivered by the Superior Chamber on February 9, 2011, in case SUP-JDC-23/2011 concerning Hector Montoya Fernández Meza (monitoring compliance file, tome II, folios 967 and 971); Judgment delivered by the Superior Chamber on June 1, 2010, in case SUP- JDC 132/2010 concerning Luis Manuel Pérez de Acha (file of evidence received during the private hearing on February 20, 2012, tome I, folio 1); Judgment delivered by the Superior Chamber on June 15, 2011, in case SUP-JDC-4880/2011 concerning Marciano Javier Ramírez Trinidad (file of evidence received during the private hearing on February 20, 2012, tome I, folio 45), and Judgment delivered by the Superior Chamber on August 26, 2011, in case SUP-JDC 574/2011 concerning Héctor Montoya Fernández (file of evidence received during the private hearing on February 20, 2012, tome I, folios 71 and 87 to 91). 23 Cf. Judgment delivered by the Superior Chamber on August 26, 2011, in case file SUP-JDC 574/2011 concerning Héctor Montoya Fernández (file of evidence received during the private hearing on February 20, 2012, tome I, folios 88 and 89). 24 The Court recalls that the relevant part of article 80.1.d) de la Electoral Contestation Law, establishes that protection proceedings may be filed by the citizen if “[h]e considers that his politico-electoral right to be elected has been violated, when, having been proposed by a political party, his registration as a candidate to an elected office is unduly denied.” Cf. Decree amending, adding to, and annulling various provisions of the Organic Law of the Federal Judiciary and of the General Law on the System of Mechanisms for Contesting Electoral Matters, published in the Official Gazette on July 1, 2008, art. 1 in which, inter alia, article 80 of the Electoral Contestation Law was amended (monitoring compliance file, tome I, folios 213 and 221). 9