89 State. Indeed, the Inter-American Democratic Charter states that “[t]he strengthening of political parties and other political organizations is a priority for democracy.”177 216. Political parties and organizations or groups that take part in the life of the State, such as in electoral processes in a democratic society, must have aims that are compatible with regard for the rights and freedoms embodied in the American Convention. In this regard, Article 16 of the Convention establishes that the exercise of the right to associate freely “shall be subject only to such restrictions established by law as may be necessary in a democratic society, in the interest of national security, public safety or public order, or to protect public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others.” 217. The Court considers that the participation in public affairs of organizations other than parties, based on the conditions mentioned in the preceding paragraph, is essential to guarantee legitimate political expression and necessary in the case of groups of citizens who, otherwise, would be excluded from this participation, with all that this signifies. 218. The restriction that they had to participate through a political party imposed on the YATAMA candidates a form of organization alien to their practices, customs and traditions as a requirement to exercise the right to political participation, in violation of domestic laws (supra para. 205) that oblige the State to respect the forms of organization of the communities of the Atlantic Coast, and affected negatively the electoral participation of these candidates in the 2000 municipal elections. The State has not justified that this restriction obeyed a useful and opportune purpose, which made it necessary so as to satisfy an urgent public interest. To the contrary, this restriction implied an impediment to the full exercise of the right to be elected of the members of the indigenous and ethnic communities that form part of YATAMA. 219. Based on the foregoing, the Court considers that the restriction examined in the preceding paragraphs constitutes an undue limitation of the exercise of a political right, entailing an unnecessary restriction of the right to be elected, taking into account the circumstances of the instant case, which are not necessarily comparable to the circumstances of all political groups that may be present in other national societies or sectors of a national society. 220. Having established the foregoing, the Court finds it necessary to indicate that any requirement for political participation designed for political parties, which cannot be fulfilled by groups with a different form of organization, is also contrary to Articles 23 and 24 of the American Convention, to the extent that it limits the full range of political rights more than strictly necessary, and becomes an impediment for citizens to participate effectively in the conduct of public affairs. The requirements for exercising the right to be elected must observe the parameters established in paragraphs 204, 206 and 207 of this judgment. 221. Article 82 of the 2000 Electoral Act establishes as a requirement to participate in the municipal elections that political parties must present candidates in at least 80% of the municipalities in the respective territorial district and with regard to 80% of the total candidacies (supra para. 124(24)). In this case, when the Supreme Electoral 177 Inter-American Democratic Charter. Adopted at the first plenary session of the OAS General Assembly, held on September 11, 2001, Article 5.