57 227. The Inter-American Commission asked the Court “to order the Mexican State to prioritize the adoption of the necessary legislative, administrative and other reforms to ensure that, in future, there is a remedy to control the constitutionality of the laws that affect political rights.” It also observed that “[…] the State has adopted an important constitutional reform, which the Commission genuinely appreciates […]” and that this reform “[…] is a first and very important step, […] but does not entirely solve the problem that affects the victim in this case […].” The Commission concluded that the effectiveness of this reform should be evaluated based on the application of the new model to specific cases, after the lower-ranking laws had been harmonized with the new provisions of the Constitution. 228. The representatives stated that they left it to the Court to determine the reparations that it considered fair in the circumstances, including, of course, guarantees of nonrepetition,” and that “a judgment in favor of the victim in this case would be a first and extremely important measure of reparation.” Specifically in relation to the constitutional reform, the representatives stated that “[…] it remedies a juridical shortcoming, which had caused the violation” of Mr. Castañeda Gutman’s right to judicial protection and it was now up to “the ordinary legislator to regulate the new constitutional provisions and establish the procedures under which citizens may exercise this remedy.” 229. The State indicated that “[…] this application was unjustified and without substance, since, as it had already argued, the text of the Constitution guaranteed and guarantees in its Article 99(3) the existence of an adequate and effective remedy that responds to the claims such as the one made today by [Mr. Castañeda Gutman].” Furthermore, the recent electoral reform of November 13, 2007, complements the said Article by developing the actions that the Electoral Tribunal can take when it is exercising its attributes under Article 99(3) of the Constitution. Thus, the Mexican State, through its Constitution, guarantees the existence of an appropriate and effective remedy […].” 230. The Court notes and appreciates the information provided by the State in its brief of November 27, 2007, in which it indicated that: “[…] a constitutional reform of several provisions of the Federal Constitution was published in the official gazette on November 13, 2007; they included Article 99, which describes the attributes of the Electoral Tribunal of the Federal Judiciary.” The State added that “[…] following this reform, in addition to the attributes that the Electoral Tribunal already exercised to guarantee political rights, [...] this jurisdictional body and its regional chambers may expressly declare the non-applicability of legal provisions that are considered contrary to the Federal Constitution with specific effects, which also annuls the future effects of any opinion that the Supreme Court of Justice may have issued on the matter.” The Court also observes that the representatives stated that this reform “[…] remedies the juridical defect that resulted in the violation” suffered by Mr. Castañeda Gutman and that its legal regulation remained to be enacted (supra para. 228). 231. Based on the above, and bearing in mind the contents of Chapter VI of this judgment, the Court finds that the State shall, within a reasonable time, complete the adaptation of its domestic law to the Convention, in order to adapt the secondary legislation and the norms that regulate the action for the protection of the rights of the citizen to the provisions of the constitutional reform of November 13, 2007, so that, using this remedy, the citizens are effectively guaranteed the possibility of contesting the constitutionality of the legal regulation of the right to be elected. ii) Obligation to publish the judgment