88 participate through a party and those who do so through an alliance of parties; the wording is imprecise on the applicable procedures when the Supreme Electoral Council determines that a requirement has not been complied with; and it does not regulate clearly the fundamental decisions that this body must adopt to establish who is registered to participate in the elections and who does not comply with the registration requirements, or the rights of those whose participation is affected by a decision of the State. This law does not allow the voter or the electoral bodies to have a clear understanding of the process and encourages its arbitrary and discretional application through extensive and contradictory interpretations that unduly restrict the participation of voters; a restriction that is particularly undesirable when it severely affects fundamental rights, such as recognized political rights.175 213. With regard to the requirements in order to be elected established in the 2000 Electoral Act, the Court takes note that the Supreme Court of Justice of Nicaragua, in judgment No. 103 delivered on November 8, 2002, declared that paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 65(9) of this law were unconstitutional, as well as Article 77(7) thereof, regarding the requirement for the presentation of the signatures of 3% of voters in order to present candidates, because it found that the provisions in the said paragraphs of Article 65 constituted “a barrier to the exercise of political rights” and that the provisions of Article 77(7) constitute[d] an undue and abhorrent interference in the political activity of the voters” (supra para. 124(75)). 214. Furthermore, Electoral Act No. 331 of 2000, only permits participation in electoral processes through political parties (supra para. 124(20)), a form of organization that is not characteristic of the indigenous communities of the Atlantic Coast. It has been proved that YATAMA was able to obtain legal status to take part in the municipal elections of November 2000 as a political party, fulfilling the corresponding requirements (supra para. 124(28)). Nevertheless, the witnesses, Brooklyn Rivera Bryan and Jorge Teytom Fedrick, and the expert witness, María Dolores Álvarez Arzate, emphasized that the requirement to become a political party disregarded the customs, organization and culture of the candidates proposed by YATAMA, who are members of the indigenous and ethnic communities of the Atlantic Coast. 215. There is no provision in the American Convention that allows it to be established that citizens can only exercise the right to stand as candidates to elected office through a political party. The importance of political parties as essential forms of association for the development and strengthening of democracy are not discounted,176 but it is recognized that there are other ways in which candidates can be proposed for elected office in order to achieve the same goal, when this is pertinent and even necessary to encourage or ensure the political participation of specific groups of society, taking into account their special traditions and administrative systems, whose legitimacy has been recognized and is even subject to the explicit protection of the 175 Cf. Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 5, para. 125; Case of Baena Ricardo et al., supra note 141, paras. 108 and 115; and Case of Cantoral Benavides. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, para. 157. 176 Cf. Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 and 41344/98, § 87, ECHR 2003-II; Case of Yazar and Others v. Turkey, nos. 22723/93, 22724/93 and 22725/93, § 32, ECHR 2002-II; and Eur. Court H.R., Case of Socialist Party and Others v. Turkey, Judgment of 25 May 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III, para. 29.