3. Analysis of the instant case 76. In the instant case, it must be examined whether or not the alleged victim’s right to participate on equal terms in the 2011 presidential elections was breached because of the participation of President José Daniel Ortega Saavedra in said electoral contest. The Commission recalls that said right entails participating in the process under conditions that are equivalent, that is, under basic conditions that are similar, without undue advantages for one of the participants in the electoral process. 77. The Commission recalls that, by the year 2011, President Ortega had been in office as president from 1985 to 1990 and was, at the time, the incumbent president since 2006 and up to 2011. During the latter term of office as president, the IACHR confirmed that a general context of concentration of power in the hands of the executive branch prevailed, leading to complaints about the absence of independence and impartiality of the Supreme Court of Justice and the Supreme Electoral Council, as well as the appointments of persons close to the executive to several monitoring bodies. The IACHR also recalls that, although Article 147 of the Constitution banned the reelection of a president if he or she has held two terms of office in the presidency, in October 2009, in response to an appeal for protection on constitutional grounds filed by the President and other persons, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice ruled that said article was nonapplicable because it violated the principle of equality, and the plenary of the same judicial body ruled that said constitutional norm was inapplicable erga omnes. 78. Although, in the present case, it is not the Commission’s role to determine whether or not reelection is a human right, the Commission stresses that indefinite reelection or extensive presidential terms of office held by one single person in certain contexts where there are no adequate safeguards or guarantees may entail certain risks for representative democracy, which is a key pillar of the inter-American system. To the extent that the incumbent government has the authority to appoint officials to monitoring bodies and other branches of government, their prolonged or indefinite permanence in government may lead to a concentration of power that renders illusory the institutional equilibrium secured through the system of checks and balances and may end up undermining the foundations of democracy such as rotation in office and access to power as a guarantee of pluralism. 79. In the instant case, the Commission observes that, apart from the general context of concentration of power and the undermining of institutions described, which proved that the President of Nicaragua did participate under advantageous conditions compared to the situation of other candidates in the electoral process of 2011, the IACHR underscores that the electoral observation reports refer to a series of elements that created undue advantages for the incumbent president. In particular: - - - It was confirmed that public resources were used to support President Ortega’s electoral campaign, Specifically, public works were inaugurated and public goods were distributed for partisan campaigning purposes. Furthermore, the Citizens Power Councils, created by presidential decree, undertook electoral campaigning for the benefit of the president and organized events with voters in which public goods and services were used. In the media it was observed that the ruling party benefited from more campaign advertising than all of its rivals put together in almost all the media. Furthermore, the state-owned media did not provide the thirty minutes that rightfully belonged to the other political parties pursuant to the law on elections. The IACHR recalls, regarding this, the context of media concentration as documented by the IACHR Special Rapporteurship for Freedom of Expression, according to which most of the audiovisual media in Nicaragua were under the political control of the President’s family and or an affiliated businessperson. In 2011, the Rapporteurship documented the broadcasting of many presidential messages on all cable television channels, which even included partisan contents. Various sources complained that the Supreme Electoral Council failed to be independent in the framework of said process and that it was perceived as aligned with the ruling party. Regarding