2 defense of democracy.” In this process, Resolution 1080 of 1991, the 1992 Protocol of Washington, and Resolution 1753 of 2000 in relation to the case of Peru stand out. This process has gradually consolidated the notion that there is no opposition between the principle of non-intervention and the defense of democracy and human rights, among other reasons because the commitments to defend human rights and democracy are made by countries in the free exercise of their sovereignty. 7. It is a well-known fact that the list of human rights has never been static. It has gradually been defined and embodied in legal instruments with the development over time of society, the organization of the State, and the evolution of political regimes. This explains why we are currently seeing the development and expansion of political rights, and even what some have called the “human right to democracy.” This development is expressed in the Inter-American Democratic Charter, the juridical instrument that the inter-American system has engendered to strengthen democracy and related rights. Its first article stipulates that: “The peoples of the Americas have a right to democracy and their governments have an obligation to promote and defend it.” 8. Following the same rationale, the inter-American system has been defining and refining the concept of democracy, strengthening the evolutive meaning of political rights above and beyond the text of the provisions of Article 23 of the Convention. This development has to be borne in mind when deciding a contentious case on the matter as, indeed, the Court has done in this judgment. 9. In this case, the Court has ruled on the alleged violation of political rights (Article 23 of the Convention) and on equality before the law (Article 24 of the Convention), in addition to the violation of Articles 8 and 25. This separate opinion does not need to repeat the findings of the Court that are set out in the judgment in the Case of YATAMA. As I pointed out above, I fully share the content of this judgment and refer to it. Nevertheless, it gives rise to some reflections of a general nature on political rights that are prompted by this specific case. 10. Article 23 of the American Convention on Human Rights stipulates a series of State obligations with regard to political rights. These are grouped into three types of rights which entail State obligations as a logical counterpart: (1) to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives (Art. 23(1)(a); (2) to vote and to be elected in genuine periodic elections, which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and by secret ballot that guarantees the free expression of the will of the voters (Art. 23(1)(b), and; (c) to have access, under general conditions of equality, to the public service of [one’s] country (Art. 23(1)(c). In this judgment, the Court declares that all the rights embodied in Article 23(1) have been violated. The Court also declares that Article 24 of the Convention has been violated as regards the right to equality and non-discrimination. 11. A first general consideration is that, in this case, the political rights which the Court considers that Nicaragua has violated have been violated twice. On the one hand, because the provisions of Electoral Act No. 331 of 2000 violated Article 23 owing to the ambiguity of several of its provisions, the obstacles that it established to the electoral participation of organizations other than political parties, and the requirements that it establishes for the presentation of candidates in at least 80% of the municipalities of the respective districts and 80% of the total number of candidacies. On the other hand, because the State has failed to comply with its obligation, established in Article 1(1) and 2 in relation to Article 23, to produce the appropriate conditions and mechanisms for the participation in public affairs of those who wished to be candidates in the Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua as members or representatives of YATAMA, an organization that represents the indigenous peoples of this region of the country.