51 the presentation of the political platforms or plans of government for the period for which the candidacy is postulated, the deposit of financial guarantees or “sincerity policies,” even a management organization similar to that of the political parties throughout the territory of the State, in case of independent candidacies for the Presidency of the Republic. 200. Neither of the two systems: exclusive nomination by political parties or the one that allows independent candidacies is, in itself, more or less restrictive than the other in terms of regulating the right to be elected embodied in Article 23 of the Convention. The Court considers that it is not possible to make an abstract assessment of whether the system that allows independent candidacies is a less restrictive alternative for regulating the right to be elected than the other that does not allow them. This will depend on diverse circumstances, especially on how the abovementioned aspects of the independent candidacies are regulated or on the regulation of the candidacies presented by parties. 201. Independent candidacies can be regulated to facilitate and expand access to the right to be elected, but at times the requirements for registering independent candidacies can be greater than those established for the nomination of a candidate by a political party. The mere fact that independent candidacies are allowed does not mean that this is the least restrictive way to regulate the right to be elected. The essential point is that whichever of the two systems is chosen, it should make accessible and guarantee the right and the opportunity to be elected established in the Convention, under equal conditions. 202. The Court observes that the State justified its affirmation that the regulation contested by Mr. Castañeda Gutman was not disproportionate (supra par. 172). Moreover, the alleged victim did not argue or provide any evidence that would allow the Court to conclude that the requirement to be nominated by a political party imposed concrete, specific obstacles that signified a disproportionate, burdensome or arbitrary restriction of his right to be elected. To the contrary, the Court notes that Mr. Castañeda Gutman even had several alternatives to exercise his right to be elected, such as joining a political party and trying, by means of the internal democracy, to obtain the nomination to be postulated by a party; being an external candidate of a party; forming his own party and competing under equal conditions or, lastly, forming a national political group that signs an agreement to participate with a political party. According to the elements in the case file before the Court, the alleged victim did not use any of these alternatives. iii) Proportionality of the interest that is justified and adaptation to the achievement of the legitimate objective 203. Regarding whether the measure was adapted to achieving the legitimate objective sought, based on the above the Court finds that, in the instant case, the exclusivity of nomination by political parties to elected office at the federal level is an appropriate measure to produce the legitimate result sought of organizing the electoral processes efficiently in order to hold genuine periodic elections, by universal and equal suffrage and by secret vote that guarantee the free expression of the will of the voters, as established by the American Convention. 204. Lastly, the Court considers that both systems, one built on the exclusive basis of political parties, and the other that also allows independent candidacies can be compatible with the Convention and, therefore, the decision on which system to choose is subject to the political decision made by the State, in accordance with its constitutional norms. The Court is aware that there is a profound crisis as regards the political parties, the legislatures and those who conduct public affairs in the region, which calls for a thorough and thoughtful debate on political participation and representation, transparency, and the rapprochement