7/8/2020 Mexico 9768, 9780 and 9828 50. The Commission, in its 1982-1983 Annual Report, indicates that the municipal elections held in Haiti in 1983 “were carried out in a atmosphere of insecurity and fear because of the virtual existence of a state of siege, the absence of individual guarantees and while the principal opposition leaders were imprisoned or in exile …” (page 27). With respect to Nicaragua, in that same Annual Report, the Commission in considering the political parties law of August 17, 1983, noted that it should be implemented with an electoral law “that establishes the conditions and circumstances required to hold free, secret, and informed elections within a short time, and to which all political sectors of Nicaragua can have access” (page 28). 51. Also in the 1982-1983 Annual Report, when referring to elections in Paraguay, the Commission noted that the existing state of siege during the electoral campaign, as well as the repressive laws “determined that the electoral process had been conducted in an environment of restrictions on public liberties, of fear and insecurity and while the opposition leaders… were prosecuted and jailed or expelled from the country” (page 28). 52. Also in the 1983-1984 Annual Report, the Commission considered the general conditions affecting electoral processes, pointed out that as to Nicaragua: … The Commission has been able to verify that during the current electoral process the Sandinista National Liberation Front has profusely used all of the resources which the power of the state, which it holds, puts at its disposal, placing it in an advantageous position over the contenders. In this matter, the denounced harassment of political and labor leaders constitutes an unacceptable method. In this sense, the IACHR thinks that it would be very positive if the Government of Nicaragua were to use all its available resources to achieve, in the next elections, the participation of all of those who represent different political options, with absolute equality (page 119). 53. Also in its Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Chile in 1985, the InterAmerican Commission, when it criticized the plebiscite to which the 1980 constitution was subjected, stated: The Commission is not in a position to refer to the specific irregularities in the plebiscite that were reported. However, that does not preclude it from forming a judgment on the circumstances prior to it, and considering that the lack of electoral rolls, the existence of the state of emergency, the inactivity of political parties, the practical disadvantages of opposition sectors in access to the information media, and the absence of viable options to the rejection of the proposal of the Government, are all elements that seriously affect the credibility of that procedure. (page 272). 54. In the conclusions of the chapter referring to the exercise of political rights of the aforementioned Report On Chile, the Inter-American Commission, when referring to the referendum in 1978 as well as the 1980 plebiscite expressed that in both occasions there existed: … restrictions arising from the existence of states of constitutional emergency, which have had a negative impact on the exercise of other human rights associated with the exercise of political rights such as the right to freedom of expression and opinion, the right of association, the right of assembly, and the right to personal freedom. The Commission has also been able to observe that, when those polls were held, political parties were proscribed or dissolved and that a significant group of Chileans was impeded from returning to the country. The Commission has also been able to observe that when those polls were held, the Government used all the resources at its disposal and put the opposition in a clearly disadvantageous position. In the opinion of the Commission, these serious restrictions violate the principle of pluralism, which is characteristic of a regime of representative democracy; they also affect the freedom and the authenticity that are fundamental characteristics of any poll in which the right to vote is exercised. All these elements cast well-founded doubts on the credibility of the two procedures (pages 282-283). cidh.org/annualrep/89.90eng/Mexico9768.htm 9/17