35 Government has taken note of the electoral triumph of YATAMA in the November 2004 municipal elections. The previous Electoral Act was more representative of the “Nicaraguan people’ expectations of democracy,” because it included the category of “public subscription association” and contained fewer requirements for forming political parties than the current Electoral Act. This means that there is an “urgent need” to reform the Electoral Act. However, the majority political parties in the National Assembly “do not even have this on the agenda and seem to be satisfied with the actual law.” 3. Marvin Saúl Castellón Torres, Deputy Prosecutor for Matters relating to Property He referred to the supremacy of the Nicaraguan Constitution, embodied in Article 182 of the Constitution. Nicaraguan case law has established that the recourse for unconstitutionality is intended to guarantee this supremacy. The expert witness referred to the principle of the independence and separation of powers. Article 173 of the Constitution stipulates that, “there shall be no ordinary or special recourse against the resolutions of the Supreme Electoral Council concerning electoral matters.” The Supreme Court of Justice of Nicaragua has ruled that, in electoral matters, no recourse is admissible; nevertheless, it is possible to file an application for amparo against an administrative act of the Supreme Electoral Council. When an individual files an appeal for review and the Supreme Electoral Council does not issue a ruling, the individual would be “restricted” because the Council’s decision is final. A reform of the Electoral Act would require “a favorable vote of 60% of the deputies.” Bearing in mind the political composition of the Legislature, this would require an agreement between the two majority parties, which are the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) and the Constitutionalist Liberal Party (PLC). If a reform is possible, it should be the “result of an analysis of the whole Act” by the Supreme Electoral Council. C) ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE Assessment of the documentary evidence 112. In this case, as in others,14 the Court accepts the probative value of the documents presented by the parties at the proper procedural opportunity or as helpful evidence, in accordance with Article 45(2) of its Rules of Procedure, that were not contested or opposed, and whose authenticity was not questioned. 113. Likewise, the State submitted evidence with regard to facts that supervened the filing of the application, in accordance with Article 44(3) of the Rules of Procedure,; consequently the Court accepts as evidence those documents that were not contested or opposed, and whose authenticity was not questioned, and which are related to the 14 Cf. Case of Caesar, supra note 11, para. 46; Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 10, para. 37; and Case of Lori Berenson Mejía, supra note 11, para. 77.