28 proposed by a political party, consider that their right to be elected has been violated when their registration for public office is unduly denied. They stated that the Electoral Tribunal does not have the competence to decide contestations of electoral laws in the case of a citizen who does not belong to a political party such as Mr. Castañeda Gutman. Lastly, they indicated that the cases to which the State referred, including the Hank Rhon case, “were filed individually by candidates proposed by a party or by a coalition of parties,” and that “if they had not been proposed by a party, the action would have been declared inadmissible and the claim would have been rejected outright.” 105. The State argued that the Electoral Tribunal has stated that the admissibility of the judicial action for protection only required the presence of the elements established in the first paragraph of Article 79 of the Law on Contesting Electoral Matters and that “for the admissibility [of the action], the provisions of Article 80 [of this Law] are not important.” It attached the Electoral Tribunal’s case law indicating that the “requirements for the admissibility of the action for the protection of the political and electoral rights of the citizen are established in Article 79 (and not 80) of the [Law on Contesting Electoral Matters].” Based on this case law, the State indicated that Article 79 of the Law on Contesting Electoral Matters “opens up the judicial action for protection to any citizen who considers that his rights have been infringed, including those who state that they have not been postulated by a party,” and that Article 80 of the said Law establishes “some specific conditions, for example, the case of candidates proposed by political parties.” To reinforce the argument about the admissibility of the action for the protection of political and electoral rights, without the need to file this through a political party, the State referred during the public hearing, among other cases, to that of Hank Rhon, in which “[…] the said citizen, when filing the remedy, did so on his own behalf; in other words, he was not supported by any political party when he resorted to the Tribunal to defend his right to participate, and it was only when the Tribunal ruled in his favor that a political party adopted him and, consequently, he was able to take part in the corresponding elections. * * * 106. To comply with its Convention-based obligation to establish within their domestic laws an effective recourse in the terms of the Convention, the States must provide accessible recourses to all persons to protect their rights. If a specific judicial action is the recourse destined by the law to obtain the restitution of the right that is considered violated, any person who holds title to that right must be genuinely able to file it. 107. In this case, the alleged victim claimed a violation of his political right to be elected, owing to an electoral law that imposed the requirement that candidates had to be postulated by a political party. The Court must determine whether the judicial action for protection was an accessible recourse for the alleged victim. As the Court has observed, the amparo was an inadmissible recourse owing to the matter involved (supra para. 91) and the unconstitutionality proceedings were not available for an individual such as Mr. Castañeda Gutman, because it is a special recourse limited, among other aspects, by its active legal capacity (infra para. 128). 108. The law that regulates the judicial action for protection is the Law on Contesting Electoral Matters. Article 79(1) of this Law establishes that: The judicial action for the protection of political and electoral rights is only admissible when the citizen, on his own behalf and on an individual basis, claims alleged violations of his right to elect and be elected in general elections, to associate individually and freely to take part peacefully in political matters and to join political parties freely and individually.