7/8/2020 Mexico 9768, 9780 and 9828 According to that interpretation, the right protected by the Convention is the right “to vote and to be elected,” which is an individual right of immediate enforceability that imposes upon the State an obligation not to act. In contrast, the need for the elections to be legitimate imposes upon the state an obligation to act. Based on this reasoning, the government maintains that The Commission is competent to consider individual petitions concerning human rights of immediate enforceability which the States are obligated to observe …, but it is not competent to consider petitions concerning collective rights that the State is obligated to develop progressively for its inhabitants. The need for honest elections imposes upon the State an obligation to act: to progressively develop, in accordance with circumstances and conditions in each country, the guarantee that voters may freely express their will. 31. The government’s reply refers also to elections, describing them as “internal processes” that affect the rights of citizens (rights which the Mexican legal system distinguishes from individual rights) and to their characteristics (page 10). 32. After setting forth the interpretation underlying the distinction between the right to vote and to be elected and the right to have legitimate elections, the Government of Mexico, in its comments, states that any conclusion issued by the Commission on the legitimacy of the elections would violate the principle of nonintervention: … Any conclusion issued by the Commission on the “legitimacy” of an electoral process would be an attempted threat against the personality of the officials elected in that process and would constitute an act of intervention, according to the definition set forth in Article 18 of the Charter, by which the Organization of American States, of which the Commission is an organ, is forbidden to carry out by the second paragraph of Article I of its Charter. 33. The government further maintains in its comments that “… if the Convention allowed the Commission to issue conclusions on the legitimacy of elections in the States Parties to the Convention, then the Convention would be juridically null in the extreme” because the principle of nonintervention is a mandatory rule in inter-American law. Accordingly, if the Commission persists in issuing opinions on “the conditions for electoral processes in Mexico, on the basis of individual petitions, and thus insists on threatening the personality of individuals who represent the Mexican State, the Convention will be vitiated.” 4. Observations on the Government’s position 34. The observations on the Government’s position fall into two categories: those pertaining to the Government’s procedural position with respect to cases 758 and 9780 and those pertaining to the substantive arguments advanced in case 9828 and in the comments on the Commission’s report. 4.a. Admissibility 35. As to the statement that the complaint in case 9768 is untimely because it was presented after six months from the date on which the Supreme Court notified the Chamber of Deputies of its decision on the writ filed by the claimant, the latter holds that such a requirement does not apply because he had given his address so that he might be served notice, which was never forthcoming. The claimant holds that it is illogical that the Chamber of Deputies be given notice when a casually adopted decision stripped him of his position as Congressman, while stating that the Supreme Court itself has set precedents on the need to personally give notice to anyone affected by its decisions. The regulation of the law on electoral processes, known as LOPPE–in force at this time–stipulates personal notice in Article 153, while Article 240 of this law provides for submission of the Supreme Court decision to the Chamber of Deputies. The claimant adduces that this lack of personal notice is contrary to Article 8 of the Federal Constitution and this is why a personal notice should have been given, to fill the vacuum, as stipulated in the Mexican Code of Civil Procedure. cidh.org/annualrep/89.90eng/Mexico9768.htm 6/17