ruling, because paragraph 15 of Article 173 of Constitution provided that “No appeal, ordinary or extraordinary, shall lie against the decisions taken by the Supreme Council on electoral matters.” 65 Likewise, in the same ruling, it was stated that “the present ruling is an electoral matter and no remedy is admissible.” 86. In the case of Yatama v. Nicaragua, the Inter-American Court examined paragraph 15 of Article 173 of the Constitution in the light of the American Convention and concluded that said legal framework did not protect the right to judicial protection. Specifically in that case, the Court emphasized the following: 173. There was no judicial remedy against the resolution of the Supreme Electoral Council of August 15, 2000 (supra para. 124(51)), so this could not be revised, even if it had been adopted without respecting the guarantees of the electoral procedure established in the Electoral Act or the minimum guarantees established in Article 8(1) of the Convention, applicable to the process. 174. Even though the Nicaraguan Constitution has established that the resolutions of the Supreme Electoral Council on electoral matters are not subject to ordinary or special recourses, this does not mean that this Council should not be subject to judicial controls, as are the other branches of government. The requirements arising from the principle of the independence of the powers of the State are not incompatible with the need to establish recourses or mechanisms to protect human rights. 175. Irrespective of the regulations that each State establishes for its supreme electoral body, the latter must be subject to some form of jurisdictional control that allows it to be determined whether its acts have been adopted respecting the minimum guarantees and rights established in the American Convention, and those established in its own laws; this is not incompatible with regard for the functions inherent in this body concerning electoral matters. This control is essential when the supreme electoral bodies such as the Supreme Electoral Council in Nicaragua, have broad powers, which exceed administrative faculties and which could be used, without an adequate control, to favor determined partisan objectives. In this sphere, this recourse must be simple and prompt, taking into account the characteristics of the electoral process (supra para. 150).66 87. When monitoring compliance in the case of Yatama of 2015, the Inter-American Court reiterated that “the state has not complied with the following reparations ordered in the judgment: (…) b) to adopt, within a reasonable period of time, the necessary legislative measures to establish a simple, prompt, and effective legal remedy to monitor the decisions of the Supreme Electoral Council affecting human rights, such as political rights, with the observance of the respective legal and treaty-based guarantees, and to repeal the regulations that prevent filing that remedy.” 67 88. The Commission deems that the possibility to legally challenge the ruling of the Supreme Electoral Council of April 4, 2011 was especially important in the instant case taking into account, among other aspects, the text of the Constitution whereby it would have been concluded that President Ortega was banned from participating in the electoral race, the allegations of failure to ensure the Supreme Electoral Council’s impartiality as described in the section on context, and the position held by the alleged victim in the electoral process. The IACHR recalls that, according to Article 25 of the American Convention, states must provide judicial remedies to those persons who allege being victims of human rights violations. 89. By virtue of the above, the Commission concludes that the Nicaraguan state is responsible for the violation of the right to judicial protection as established in Article 25.1 of the American Convention in connection with Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Fabio Gadea Mantilla. V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 90. The Commission concludes that the Nicaraguan state is responsible for the violation of the rights set forth in Article 23.1(c) (political rights) and Article 25.1 (judicial protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in connection with the obligations laid out in Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument. Brief of observations of March 20, 2018 from the petitioner. I/A Court H.R. Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127. 67 Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, November 20, 2015. Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, p. 7. 65 66