57 totally inadmissible,” and “safeguarded the rights that the petitioners consider they have, so that they may exercise them in the corresponding instance.”108 124(61) On October 25, 2000, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice issued judgment No. 205, in which it declared “inadmissible in limine litis” the application for amparo filed by the representatives of YATAMA (supra para. 124(55)), because the resolution of the Supreme Electoral Council of August 15, 2000, “is a resolution concerning an electoral matter,” and the said Chamber “lacks [...] competence in electoral matters, based on the final part of Article 173 of the Constitution which establishes: ‘There shall be no ordinary or special recourse against the resolutions of the Supreme Electoral Council.” Furthermore, the Constitutional Chamber indicated that Article 1 of the Electoral Act established in its “fifth and sixth paragraphs that electoral processes for the election of mayors, deputy mayors and members of municipal councils shall not be subject to any ordinary or special recourse.” The said Constitutional Chamber also indicated that, under Nicaraguan laws, “there was no amparo procedure under constitutional or administrative law with regard to electoral matters,” and that, in another judgment, “it had ruled on resolutions of the Supreme Electoral Council concerning administrative matters relating to political parties, regarding which the Council ha[d] competence, and it ha[d] so declared.” In addition, the said Chamber “reprimanded the Civil and Labor Chamber of the Court of Appeal of the North Atlantic District, for having processed the application for amparo when it should have rejected it”109 (supra para. 124(57)). 124(62) On October 30, 2000, the Supreme Electoral Council issued a communication in which it addressed the “people of Nicaragua in general and the international community to announce [... that] the YATAMA political party had been granted legal status [...] and this was maintained in force and with all its legal effects,” and also that the said regional political party “c[ould] participate and present candidates in its respective Autonomous regions in the elections of November [2001].”110 124(63) YATAMA, and also the Ombudsman’s Office, the President of the National Unity Movement (MUN), the OAS Electoral Observation Mission, and other organizations, such Ética y Transparencia [Translator’s note: the local branch of Transparency International], requested “that the municipal elections in the North Atlantic Autonomous Region be postponed for a period that w[ould] allow the YATAMA party to organize a campaign and take part in” these elections, since the Supreme Electoral Council was empowered to suspend them “based on Articles 4 and 10(4) of the Electoral Act […].”111 The Supreme Electoral Council did not suspend the said 108 Cf. resolution of October 24, 2000, issued by the Civil and Labor Chamber of the Court of Appeal of the North Atlantic District, Puerto Cabezas (file of appendixes to the application, tome II, appendix 8.5, folio 545). 109 Cf. judgment No. 205 of October 25, 2000, issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Nicaragua (appendixes to the brief with preliminary objections, answering the application and with comments on the brief with requests and arguments, appendix A, file of preliminary objections, merits and reparations, tome II, folio 384). 110 Cf. communication of October 30, 2000, issued by the Supreme Electoral Council (file of appendixes to the application, tome II, appendix 17, folio 604). 111 Cf. sworn written statement by Roberto Courtney made on February 21, 2005 (file of preliminary objections, merits and reparations, tome III, folio 843); Final report on the 2000 municipal elections. Grupo Cívico Ética y Transparencia. December 2000 (file of appendixes to the application, tome II, appendix 21, folio 741); Electoral Observation in Nicaragua: 2000 Municipal Elections/Unit for the Promotion of