56 124(56) On September 21, 2000, in keeping with the electoral calendar, the electoral campaign began; it lasted 42 days, in accordance with the law, culminating on November 1, 2000.104 124(57) On October 11, 2000, the Civil and Labor Chamber of the Court of Appeal of the North Atlantic District, Puerto Cabezas, decided to process the application for amparo presented by YATAMA on August 30, 2000 (supra para. 124(55)), and agreed “to suspend de oficio the resolution preventing the regional party, YATAMA, from registering its candidates and, thus, excluding them from the elections for municipal authorities of November 5, 2000, LEAVING THE SITUATION OF YATAMA BEFORE THE SUPREME ELECTORAL COUNCIL AS IT WAS BEFORE THE RESOLUTION ISSUED BY THE SUPREME ELECTORAL COUNCIL[, …] SINCE, IF THIS RESOLUTION WAS IMPLEMENTED, IT WOULD BE PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO RESTORE THE RIGHTS OF THE APPELLANTS.”105 124(58) On October 20, 2000, the Supreme Electoral Council filed an appeal for reconsideration of a ruling before the Civil and Labor Chamber of the Court of Appeal of the North Atlantic District, Puerto Cabezas, against this Chamber’s ruling of October 11, 2000 (supra para. 124(57)), for it “to revoke this ruling [...] declaring its nullity” and to declare that the admitted appeal was out of order and “had no legal effect whatsoever,” because the resolution of the Supreme Electoral Council referred strictly to an electoral matter.106 124(59) On October 23, 2000, Brooklyn Rivera and Centuriano Knight, YATAMA representatives, filed a brief before the Bilwi Civil Chamber of the Court of Appeal of the North Atlantic Autonomous Region (RAAN), requesting that the appeal for reconsideration of a ruling filed by the Supreme Electoral Council (supra para. 124(58)) should be rejected as inadmissible, because the Amparo Act in force established that, in order for the suspension that had been decided to be annulled, the only option would be the offer of a guarantee. They also stated that this was a case of an “objection [...] against an administrative resolution that violated constitutional rights to political participation[, ...] and if it was accepted, it would make it physically impossible to restore [their] rights, because not only would it prevent them from taking part in the election, but it would also [...] result in the loss of [their] legal status, according to Article 74(4) of the Electoral Act.”107 124(60) On October 24, 2000, the Civil and Labor Chamber of the Court of Appeal of the North Atlantic District, Puerto Cabezas, rejected the appeal for reconsideration of a ruling filed by the Supreme Electoral Council (supra para. 124(58)) “because […] it was 104 Cf. electoral calendar of the Supreme Electoral Council (file of appendixes to the application, tome II, appendix 9, folio 580). 105 Cf. resolution of October 11, 2000, issued by the Court of appeal of the North Atlantic District Civil and Labor Chamber, in Puerto Cabezas (file of appendixes to the application, tome II, appendix 8(2), folio 536). 106 Cf. appeal for reconsideration of ruling filed by the Supreme Electoral Council before the Civil and Labor Chamber of the Court of Appeal of the North Atlantic District, Puerto Cabezas (file of appendixes to the application, tome II, appendix 8(2), folio 538). 107 Cf. petition of October 23, 2000, filed by YATAMA’s legal representatives before the Civil and Labor Chamber of the Court of Appeal of the North Atlantic District, Puerto Cabezas (file of appendixes to the application, tome II, appendix 8(4), folio 542).