7/8/2020 Mexico 9768, 9780 and 9828 express their will.” This argument would condition the existence of human rights on “the circumstances and situation of each country” leaving the whole legal system in a precarious state. 90. With respect to the argument contained in the Mexican Government’s comments which holds that any opinion issued by the Commission on an electoral process on the basis of individual complaints constitutes a violation of the principle of nonintervention, it should be state here once again that the Mexican State, by virtue of having signed and ratified the Convention, has consented to allow certain aspects of its internal jurisdiction to be a subject of judgments on the part of the organs instituted to protect the rights and guarantees recognized by the instrument, it is even truer when the instrument is a treaty that recognizes the inalienable rights of man, which, antedate and are paramount over those of the State. 91. Moreover, as stated in Article 18 of the OAS Charter, the principle of nonintervention is a rule of conduct that governs the acts of States or groups of States. All of the normative precedents developed within the inter-American system (Seventh International Conference of American States, Montevideo, 1933, and Inter-American Conference for the Strengthening of Peace, Buenos Aires, 1936, Additional Protocol on Nonintervention), have taken that approach. The Inter-American Juridical Committee, in its “Draft Instrument” on cases of violations of the principle of nonintervention (1972), indicated that one of the basic criteria followed preparing it was that “only States can be subjects of intervention.” 92. It should be noted further that in 1972, at its second session, the General Assembly of the Organization of American States adopted a resolution entitled “Strengthening of the Principles of Nonintervention and the Self-determination of Peoples and Measures to guarantee their Observance.” This resolution reaffirms the concept that only States can be subjects of intervention. It is relevant to quote the text of the following paragraph of that resolution: All states shall respect the right of self-determination and independence of peoples and nations, to be freely exercised without any foreign pressure and with absolute respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. 93. The principle of nonintervention is therefore linked to the right of peoples to selfdetermination and independence and is described as a principle to be practiced in suitable harmony with human rights and fundamental freedoms. This important interrelation of principles of international law is formalized as a rule of law in Article 16 of the OAS Charter, which reads as follows: Each State has the right to develop its cultural, political, and economic life freely and naturally. In this free development, the State shall respect the rights of individuals and the principles of universal morality. 94. According to this rule, the right of the State to develop its internal life freely has a counterpart in its obligation to respect the rights of individuals. And in inter-American law these rights are formally recognized in the American Convention on Human Rights. The correct interpretation of the principle of nonintervention is therefore one based on protecting the right of States to self-determination provided the right is exercised in a manner consistent with respect for the rights of individuals. 95. The above leads to the conclusion that the Commission, based on its regulatory instruments, is empowered to examine and evaluate the degree to which the internal legislation of the State party guarantees or protects the rights stipulated in the Convention and their adequate exercise and, obviously, among these, political rights. The IACHR is also empowered to verify, with respect to these rights, if the holding of periodic, authentic elections, with universal, equal, and secret suffrage takes place, within the framework of the necessary guarantees so that the voters could, if necessary, effectively appeal against an electoral process that they consider fraudulent, defective, and irregular or that ignores the “right to access, under general conditions of equality, to the public functions of their country.” cidh.org/annualrep/89.90eng/Mexico9768.htm 15/17