7/8/2020 Mexico 9768, 9780 and 9828 procedure. The clear-cut shortcoming of the law governing notifications justifies in this case the recommendation that the Commission sees fit to make on the need for Mexico to bring its domestic legislation into line with the requirements for proper protection of the rights set forth in the Convention. 23. In its comments, the Government of Mexico develops at length the argument put forward in case No. 10.180 (which is not one of the cases on which the report was based) on the appropriateness of the remedy of amparo in connection with political rights. In this respect, the government indicates that the petitioners must object to the acts in violation of their political rights on the basis of the principle of legality–guaranteed by Article 14 of the National Constitution–in accordance with opinion 127 of the Supreme Court, which would allow recourse to amparo. Remedies under domestic law would therefore not be exhausted. 3.b. alleged Incompetence of the Commission 24. In case 9828, the Mexican Government adopts a right position, after three petitions for postponement of the deadline to respond to the complaint. Said position is then partially modified by the government. The arguments are presented below. 25. The first argument of the Mexican government is that the assessment of elections is a matter regulated by the Federal Constitution and the State Constitution and that, since the Constitution is the highest law, treaties must submit to it. Both Article 60 of the Federal Constitution as well as Article 64 of the Constitution of the State of Chihuahua establish that the rulings of the electoral bodies in charge of elections are “final and unattackable” or “irrevocable.” Hence, the decisions of these electoral bodies “is not and cannot be subject to international jurisdiction,” therefore, the examination of the complaint is not pertinent and must be declared inadmissible. 26. The other argument of the Mexican government is that if a “State agreed to submit itself to international jurisdiction with respect to the election of its political bodies, a State would cease to be sovereign.” “There is no principle of international law of international obligation on the part of Mexico that establishes that international bodies examine the composition of the political bodies of the United States of Mexico.” As a result of this reasoning, the government holds the complaint to be inappropriate, and therefore, believes that it should be declared inadmissible. 27. The Government of Mexico also invokes the principle (deeming it a right) of the self-determination of peoples, and believes that the Commission would violate said principle if it accepted the denunciation because it would infringe upon the political autonomy of the State of Chihuahua. The aforementioned principle would also be affected if an interpretation of the American Convention violated the right of a sovereign state to elect is political bodies, which furthermore, would be in conflict with the Pact of San José, which must be compatible with the aim of the treaty and which must be carried out in good faith, as set out in the Vienna Convention. 28. Finally, the Mexican government holds that the American Convention does not limit the sovereign powers of the states to elect their political bodies and that Mexico, when it ratified the Pact of San José, “did not conceive that the same could be interpreted so as to give jurisdiction to an international body to review the election of its political bodies.” If this had in fact occurred, the government holds that it would abide by its Constitution and would deny legal force to anything that would oppose it. Consequently, it would deny jurisdiction to the Commission to judge the results of the elections. 29. At a later time, the Government of Mexico claims that the petitioner had not exhausted domestic remedies, thereby partially modifying its position with respect to the irrevocability of the decisions of electoral bodies, without specifying what procedures are available. It reiterates its position on the lack of jurisdiction of the Commission to render a decision on electoral processes. 30. In its comments on the Commission’s Report, the Government of Mexico sets forth a new interpretation of the rule contained in Article 23.1.b of the American Convention. cidh.org/annualrep/89.90eng/Mexico9768.htm 5/17