25 State, that the application for amparo filed by the alleged victim was not the appropriate remedy in this case, since it was inadmissible in relation to electoral matters. 92. The Court finds that it is not inherently incompatible with the Convention that a State limits the application for amparo to specific matters, provided that it offers another remedy of a similar nature and equal scope for those rights that cannot be heard by the courts using the amparo proceeding. This is particularly relevant as regards political rights, which are human rights of such importance that the American Convention prohibits their suspension, and also of the judicial rights that are essential to protect them (infra para. 140). 93. Despite the above, the Court considers it pertinent to refer to the Inter-American Commission’s argument that, over and above the fact that the application for amparo was not the appropriate remedy, because electoral matters fell outside its sphere of competence, “effectiveness implies that the judicial body has assessed the merits of the complaint.” In this regard, the Court has established that “the competent authority’s examination of a judicial remedy […] cannot be limited to a mere formality, but must examine the reasons invoked by the complainant and specifically express an opinion on them, according to the parameters established by the American Convention.29 In other words, it is a minimum guarantee for anyone who files a remedy that the grounds for the ruling deciding it are stated; otherwise the ruling will violate the guarantee of due process. 94. For the Court, the requirement that the decision should be founded is not the same as an analysis of the merits of the matter, since this examination is not essential to determine the effectiveness of the remedy. The existence and application of conditions for the admissibility of a remedy is compatible with the American Convention,30 and the effectiveness of the remedy implies that, when these conditions are complied with, the judicial organ may assess its merits. II. The action for the protection of the political and electoral rights of citizens 95. The Commission stated that TRIFE lacked competence to declare that Article 175 of the COFIPE was inapplicable in a specific case, based on the express wording of Article 10 of the Law on Contesting Electoral Matters and the criteria of the Supreme Court of Justice. Although the State alleged the effectiveness and appropriateness of the action for the protection of the political and electoral rights of the citizen before TRIFE, the case law of this judicial organ reveals the contrary. In this regard, the Commission pointed to the judgment delivered on February 2, 2006, in relation to the remedy filed by Héctor Montoya Fernández, in which TRIFE, when referring specifically to the application of Article 175, paragraph one, of the COFIPE established that “[…] this Superior Chamber must apply the legal provisions, even when they are considered contrary to the Constitution.” Given that the judicial action for protection was not effective, at the time of the facts an individual did not have an 29 Cf. Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 96. 30 In this regard, the Court has stated: “[…] Based on legal certainty, for the proper and functional administration of justice and the effective protection of human rights, the State can and must establish admissibility presumptions and criteria for domestic recourses of a judicial or any other nature. Thus, although these domestic recourses must be available to the interested party and decide the matter raised effectively, stating the grounds, as well as possibly providing appropriate reparation, it cannot be considered that always and in all cases, the domestic organs and courts must decide on the merits of the matter lodged before them, without verifying the formal presumptions of admissibility and the validity of the specific recourse filed” (italics added). Cf. Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.), supra note 13, para. 126.