26 effective remedy to protect his political rights in Mexico and, in practice, the Mexican legal system did not include a mechanism for individuals such as Mr. Castañeda Gutman to question constitutional issues relating to the electoral norms. 96. The representatives emphasized that the Law on Contesting Electoral Matters excluded questioning the non-conformity of federal or local laws with the Constitution from the sphere of the said contestation mechanisms. They also indicated that the Electoral Tribunal did rule on the constitutionality of juridical norms regarding electoral matters, but that, subsequently, the Supreme Court of Justice clarified definitively the Electoral Tribunal’s lack of competence to rule on the constitutionality of electoral norms, and determined that the power to decide on contradictions between electoral norms and the Constitution was limited to the Plenary session of the Supreme Court of Justice, so that the only way to raise the non-conformity of such laws with the Constitution was the unconstitutionality proceeding. In addition, the representatives stated that the Law on Contesting Electoral Matters established that the action for the protection of political and electoral rights before TRIFE could only be filed by a citizen who had been proposed by a political party. They stated that, since the alleged victim had not been proposed by a party, the action would have been declared inadmissible and the application would have been rejected in limine. 97. The State indicated that the alleged victim should have proved that a right to an independent candidacy existed, “before stating that he had no simple, prompt and effective remedy to claim it. It also argued that the action for the protection of the political and electoral rights of the citizen, a means of defense created by the constitutional reform of August 22, 1996, was the appropriate and effective remedy that the alleged victim should have chosen in order to protect the juridical situation that had allegedly been violated before the Electoral Tribunal. Owing to the existence of the protection action, the inadmissibility of the application for amparo in electoral matters did not imply the inexistence of an appropriate and effective remedy. In addition, the simple and brief remedy required by the American Convention does not necessarily have to be equated with the possibility of challenging the constitutionality of a specific law, because the relevant aspect is that this remedy can protect and restitute the fundamental right that has allegedly been violated. The judicial action for protection should have been used by the alleged victim, because it constitutes a specialized amparo in this matter; it would have allowed him to challenge the refusal to register him as an independent candidate for the office of President of the Republic and, should his claim have been justified, that the restitution of his right would have been ordered, without the need to declare that Article 175 of the COFIPE was unconstitutional. Furthermore, the Electoral Tribunal, which is the competent organ to examine the remedy, is independent and impartial, according to the Inter-American Commission’s report on its visit in loco to Mexico in 1996. The State underscored that the TRIFE Superior Chamber has proceeded to restitute the rights of individuals when their claims were considered to be justified; and that this jurisdictional body has powers “to examine the constitutionality of the acts of the authorities in its area, and to interpret the law in light of the Constitution, and has even applied the American Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights appropriately. Moreover, regarding the accessibility of the action for the protection of political and electoral rights of the citizen, the State indicated that the requirements for the admissibility of a remedy, according to the Electoral Tribunal’s case law, are those established in Article 79 of the Law on Contesting Electoral Matters, and not those established in Article 80 thereof, as the representatives alleged. According to the State, to file an action it is sufficient to be a Mexican citizen, to file the remedy as an individual and to allege supposed violations of political rights. *