9 because its purpose is not to establish whether there has been a violation of the human rights established in the American Convention and, if applicable, provide the necessary remedy. Based on the foregoing the Court rejects this preliminary objection. C) THIRD PRELIMINARY OBJECTION Failure to exhaust appropriate domestic remedies and undue filing of an inappropriate remedy 27. In its brief answering the application, the State argued that: (a) in its first answer to the Commission of January 17, 2006, “it referred to the origin, regulation and functioning of the action for the protection of a citizen’s political and electoral rights”; (b) that the action for the protection of a citizen’s political and electoral rights: (i) complies fully with the requirements of access to justice for all Mexican citizens who adduce violations of their rights, such as the right to vote and to be elected, of association and membership”; (ii) it is “the appropriate means of defense to contest acts that can be attributed to the Federal Electoral Institute which violate the Constitution and other applicable norms”; and (iii) “it also has the characteristics of being simple (because the requirements for its presentation and the formalities during its processing are not excessive), and brief (because it is decided by ordinary justice in just under a month”; (iv) that “the Electoral Tribunal is the highest authority in electoral matters, and is responsible for protecting the political and electoral rights of the citizens, verifying that the acts and resolutions delivered in this matter are adapted to the legal and constitutional legal framework,” and (v) that the alleged victim “used an inappropriate procedure for the protection of his political rights and merely sought the declaration of the unconstitutionality of the COFIPE, which confirms the assertion of the failure to exhaust the appropriate and effective remedies in this case, […] with the consequent failure to comply with Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention to the detriment of the State.” 28. In its brief with observations on the preliminary objections of October 18, 2007, the Commission referred to its Report on admissibility and merits No. 113/06 in this case and indicated that “the action for the protection of political and electoral rights is neither appropriate nor effective for [Mr. Castañeda Gutman] to claim his right to be registered as an independent candidate in the Mexican presidential elections, so that he is not obliged to exhaust it before having recourse to the inter-American system,” because “according to the Mexican legal system, the [Electoral Tribunal of the Federal Judiciary (hereinafter the Electoral Tribunal” or “TRIFE”)] cannot, either in general or for relative effects, declare the unconstitutionality of an electoral law.” Lastly, it concluded that “the content of the decisions on admissibility adopted under the rules established by the Convention and in the Commission’s Rules of Procedure should not be subjected to renewed examination of their substance,” and that “the facts of the case that have constituted a violation of the right to judicial protection and the ineffectiveness of the domestic remedies are precisely the fundamental elements of the dispute lodged before the Court.” 29. The representatives stated that the alleged victim was attempting, “in a particular case, to achieve the non-enforcement of a general norm that became the effective cause of the specific violation of his rights”; that “the remedy before the TRIFE is inappropriate and inaccessible for a private individual, as expressly stated by law”; that “since 2002 the [Supreme Court of Justice] has developed case law stating that the TRIFE, despite having done so in the past, did not have the authority to declare the non-applicability of electoral norms due to violation of the Constitution,” and that, subsequently, in sessions on September 4, 6 and 10, 2007, when deciding the request to modify case law 2/2006, “the [Supreme Court of Justice] had confirmed the content of the jurisprudential opinions which