7/8/2020 Mexico 9768, 9780 and 9828 full exercise of human rights.” That is the basis of the obligation stipulated in Article 2 of the Convention for the adoption of measures of internal law to make those rights and liberties effective. Therefore, this carries with it the obligation of the state party to adapt its internal legislation when it suffers defects that prevent or hinder the full observance of the rights recognized by the Convention and, in this specific case, the rights protected by Article 23. 83. The competent organs to “decide on matters related to the fulfillment of commitments contracted by the State party in this Convention” are, according to Article 33, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights with regards to the States that have expressly accepted its jurisdiction. The Commission, therefore, has the functions and attributions assigned to it by Article 41 of the Convention, in its task “of promoting the observance and defense of human rights.” 84. Mexico contracted the commitment to respect and guarantee the exercise of the rights listed in the Convention when it ratified it on April 3, 1982, and as regards the exercise of political rights, only expressed the reservation referring to the right to vote and association with political aims applicable to clergymen, according to provisions of Article 130 of the Constitution of the State. When it contracted the obligations derived from the Convention, it also accepted that the Inter-American Commission exercise the functions and attributions conferred by the Convention; no reservations or limitations were recorded in the instruments deposited when the Convention was ratified. 85. With regard to the Mexican Government’s new interpretation, contained in its comments of the Commission’s report, which is based on a distinction between the right to vote and to be elected, as a right of immediate enforceability, and the right to legitimate elections, as a progressively achievable right, it should be pointed out that according to Article 23.1.b of the Convention the right of citizens to vote and to be elected of necessity entails the question of the method or requirements for making the right a reality, an election, the characteristics of which give explicit validity to that rule. An electoral act is required in order to give practical effect to the abstract right to vote and to be elected, which is the reason why the Convention spells out the characteristics that elections should have. 86. From a juridical standpoint, several observations are in order. First of all, it should be pointed out that in order for this interpretive distinction between individual rights of immediate enforceability (the right to vote and to be elected) and collective rights to be developed progressively (the right to elections with particular characteristics) to have validity in the cases under consideration, it would have been necessary for Mexico, at one time or another, to have advanced this interpretation of this article and to have stated this distinction unequivocally. 87. No reference to such a distinction can be found in the Preliminary Draft Comments of the Government of Mexico on the Draft Convention (see Proceedings of the Specialized Inter-American Conference on Human Rights, 1969, page 257 of the Spanish text). Neither does any such interpretation appear in the minutes (Actas), where it is found that, in fact, the present formulation of Article 23.1.b was approved with the affirmative vote of the highly qualified delegation sent by Mexico to that Conference (see page 257, op. cit.) No interpretative statement to that effect appears to have been made at the time of Mexico’s signature of the Convention or during its ratification. 88. From the normative point of view, the structure of Article 23.1.b makes reference to certain features that should be present in order for the right to be recognized to be valid in practice. Indeed, any mention of the right to vote and to elected would be mere rhetoric if unaccompanied by a precisely described set of characteristics that the elections are require to meet. If the provision were not considered in its entirety, the interpretation now being advanced by the Government of Mexico would result in outright suppression of the enjoyment and exercise of political rights. Mexico would thereby be violating Article 29.a (Restrictions regarding Interpretation) of the Convention. 89. The comments also contain the argument that “… the need for the elections to be legitimate imposes upon the State an obligation to act: To progressively develop, in accordance with circumstance and conditions in each country, the guarantee that the voters may freely cidh.org/annualrep/89.90eng/Mexico9768.htm 14/17