22 guarantee “constitutes one of the basic pillars, not only of the American Convention, but also of the rule of law in a democratic society pursuant to the Convention.”26 Thus, in accordance with Article 25(2)(b) of the Convention, the States undertake to develop the possibilities of the judicial remedy. 79. In turn, the State’s general obligation to adapt its domestic laws to the provisions of the Convention in order to guarantee the rights it embodies, which is established in Article 2, includes issuing norms and developing practices that lead to the effective observance of the rights and freedoms embodied in the Convention, as well as adopting measures to eliminate norms and practices of any nature that entail a violation of the guarantees established therein.27 80. Based on the arguments of the parties regarding the alleged violation of Article 25 of the American Convention, the Court will examine whether, at the time of the facts, Mexican laws provided for an effective remedy in the terms of Article 25 of the American Convention. To this end, the Court will determine the relevant facts, and then describe the pertinent findings, first, in relation to the application for amparo filed by the alleged victim in the instant case, and then in relation to the action for the protection of the political and electoral rights of the citizen, a remedy that Mr. Castañeda Gutman should have filed, according to the State’s arguments. I. Facts 81. On March 5, 2004, the alleged victim submitted to the IFE General Council a request for registration as an independent candidate for the office of president of the United Mexican States in the elections of July 2, 2006. He alleged that he requested his registration “in exercise of the right granted [him] by Article 35(II) of the Constitution”;28 he submitted various documents and “declared under protest to tell the truth” regarding compliance with the constitutional requirements to exercise this elected office. 82. In a communication of March 11, 2004, notified the following day, the Privileges and Political Parties Executive Directorate, Political Parties and Financing Directorate, of IFE, informed Mr. Castañeda Gutman that “it [was] not possible to respond to his petition as requested.” As grounds for this decision, IFE cited, among other provisions, Article 175 of the COFIPE, which establishes that “only the national political parties have the right to request the registration of candidates to elected office” and cited TRIFE case law of October 25, 2001, indicating that “the refusal to grant registration as an independent candidate based on [a legal provision establishing] that only political parties have the right to 26 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, para. 82; Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, para. 192; and Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 131. 27 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 207; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 57; and Case of Salvador Chiriboga, supra note 6, para. 122. 28 Article 35. The citizen shall have the following prerogatives: […] II. To be able to be elected for any elected public office and appointed to any other employment or assignment, if he complies with the requirements established by law; […]