understanding that this norm will be applied and interpreted “so that the [protection proceedings] truly guarantee citizens the possibility of questioning whether the legal regulation of the right to be elected is in keeping with the Constitution [in a specific case).” The Court considers that this new cause of inadmissibility seeks to preserve the structure of judicial competences established by domestic law, as regards the control of the conformity of the laws with the Constitution; thus, in principle, it is reasonable in order to preserve the practical effects of the exclusive competence granted to the national Supreme Court of Justice (hereinafter “the Supreme Court”) to carry out a central control of constitutionality in the abstract. In addition, this Court notes that this legal provision was not examined in its Judgment, because it is a cause of inadmissibility that arose as a result of the new possibility granted to the electoral tribunals to examine the constitutionality of norms in specific cases, as ordered by this Court in the instant case (supra considering paragraphs 16, 17 and 18). 20. The Court also notes that the parties have provided various judicial decisions to the case file. They reveal that, currently, the limitations to the accessibility and effectiveness of the protection proceedings, based on which this Court declared the violation of the right to an effective remedy in its Judgment, are not being applied. In this regard, in two judgments of June 1, 2010, and June 15, 2011, the Superior Chamber examined the possibility of not applying a legal norm based on its alleged unconstitutionality in relation to the right to be elected. 18 Similarly, another three judgments provided ratify the authority of the Superior Chamber and the Regional Chambers of the Electoral Tribunal not to apply norms in a specific case because these are considered to be unconstitutional. 19 The State also mentioned 17 cases in which both the Superior Chamber and the Regional Chambers of the Electoral Tribunal have not applied, directly and indirectly, electoral laws contrary to the Constitution, and at least four of these refer to the right to be elected. 20 Furthermore, the representatives recognized that these “precedents indicated by the Mexican State reveal significant progress in [the Mexican] system of access to justice by citizens who have considered that their politico-electoral rights have been violated and, truly, it can be inferred from them that article 10 [… of the Electoral Contestation Law] has not represented an obstacle to the exercise of the remedy, because the [Electoral Tribunal has] proceeded to exercise the powers that it has now been granted under article 99 of the Mexican Constitution, despite the provisions of article 10 […] of the said law.” In this regard, the Court considers that these judicial decisions demonstrate that the legislative and constitutional reforms undertaken by the State are achieving the guarantee that there is an appropriate remedy to question the constitutionality of electoral laws in specific cases. 21 18 Cf. Judgment delivered by the Superior Chamber on June 1, 2010, in case SUP- JDC-132/2010 concerning Luis Manuel Pérez de Acha (file of evidence received during the private hearing on February 20, 2012, tome I, folios 1 and 44), and Judgment delivered by the Superior Chamber on June 15, 2011, in case SUP-JDC-4880/2011 concerning Marciano Javier Ramírez Trinidad (file of evidence received during the private hearing on February 20, 2012, tome I, folios 45 and 63). 19 Cf. Judgment delivered by the Superior Chamber on June 27, 2012, in case SUP-JDC-1749/2012 concerning Gumesindo García Morelos (monitoring compliance file, tome II, folio 1070); Judgment delivered by the Superior Chamber on June 29, 2012, in case SUP-JDC-1774/2012 concerning Federico Jesús Reyes Heroles González Garza et al. (monitoring compliance file, tome II, folio 1036), and Judgment delivered by the Superior Chamber on August 26, 2011, in file SUP-JDC-574/2011 concerning Héctor Montoya Fernández (file of evidence received during the private hearing on February 20, 2012, tome I, folio 105). 20 The State did not provide a copy of these decisions. 21 The Court notes that judgments were provided in which the Superior Chamber considered that article 10.1.a) was applicable, because what was sought was to question, in abstract, the constitutionality of various norms. In this regard, the Court notes that the measure of reparation does not include a State obligation to guarantee that, using protection proceedings, an abstract control of constitutionality is carried out; it therefore finds that the said decisions do not reveal a different criterion to the one indicated (supra considering paragraphs 18 and 20). Cf. Judgment delivered by the Regional Chamber of the Electoral Tribunal of the Federal Judiciary corresponding to the Fourth Plurinominal Circumscription on June 2, 2009, in case SDF-JDC-190/2009 concerning Elisa de Anda Madrazo 8