7/8/2020 Mexico 9768, 9780 and 9828 process and of monitoring both the implementation as well as the results. system, therefore, has been thoroughly examined by the Commission. The institutional 76. The aim of this examination has been to detect the possible manipulation of the process in favor of those who control institutions (usually the government, a political party or military forces), determine who decides on the validity of the vote (composition of the electoral bodies) and how their decisions are verified (appellate bodies). 77. In this regard, the Commission has examined aspects of practical operations such as electoral rolls and registration requirements; the composition of polling stations; the composition of the electoral tribunal and its powers, and the existence of understandable ballots, devoid of any influence of voters. 78. As can be seen, the authenticity of the elections has been the subject of numerous and frequent pronouncements by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. They have included references to the general conditions in which the electoral contest has taken place and equal participation of all the various political groups; the pronouncements of the IACHR have also referred to the organization of procedures employed for casting of the votes and the monitoring of the results, as well as institutional and legal aspects. The activity of the Inter-American Commission in this regard has been aimed at obtaining elements that make it possible to assess the relationship between popular will and the final “authenticity” of elections to which universal as well as regional legal instruments of human rights refer. When so doing, the Commission has performed the functions assigned to it by the American Convention on Human Rights, as analyzed below. 4.d. The Competence of the Commission 79. The Commission considers that it is competent to examine the cases relating to the complaints and to adopt the decision that, according to the Convention, its Statute and Regulations, it deems pertinent (Art. 44 of the Convention), since political rights, as mentioned above, are among those protected by the Convention (Art. 23), as well as by Article 25 of the United Nations Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, which ahs also been ratified by Mexico on March 23, 1981. This gives the Commission competence to act accordingly. 80. It must be pointed out, that Article 23 has two parts: paragraph 1, letters a, b and c that enunciate the nature of the rights protected and paragraph 2 which sets our the reasons that are the basis for the regulation of political rights, something to be considered jointly with Article 29 of the Convention according to which States, when regulating the exercise of rights and opportunities referred to in paragraph 1 of Article 23, cannot “limit them to a greater extent” than stipulated in the Convention. 81. The Commission considers that the act of ratifying the American Convention presupposes acceptance of the obligation of not only respecting the observance of rights and freedoms recognized in it, but also guaranteeing their existence and the exercise of all of them. It is these elements of political rights presented in item 5 of this document that the State commits itself not only to respect but “guarantee their full and free exercise,” according to Article 1.1 of the Convention. It must be pointed out that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in its Decision of July 29, 1988, in the case of Velásquez Rodríguez, has stated that Article 1.1 of the Convention: Article 1 (1) is essential in determining whether a violation of the human rights recognized by the Convention can be imputed to a State Party. In effect, that article charges the States Parties with the fundamental duty to respect and guarantee the rights recognized in the Convention. Any impairment of those rights which can be attributed under the rules of international law to the action or omission of any public authority constitutes an act imputable to the State, which assumes responsibility in the terms provided by the Convention. 82. According to the Court, “this obligation implies the duty of the State party to organize all the state apparatus and, in general, all the structures through which the exercise of public power is manifested, in such a manner that they are able to legally insure the free and cidh.org/annualrep/89.90eng/Mexico9768.htm 13/17