9. Therefore, we consider it contradictory that the Court did not rule on these allegations of the violation of the right to an impartial court, but did rule — in paragraphs 226, 227, 228 and 230 and in the second operative paragraph of the Judgment — on “the terms […] indicated, in particular, as being discriminatory [that], with some variations, appear in the different judgments”; concluding that “the mere use of this reasoning, which reveals stereotypes and prejudices, as grounds for the judgments constituted a violation of the principle of equality and non-discrimination and the right to equal protection of the law, recognized in Article 24 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument,”4 to the detriment of Segundo Aniceto Norín Catrimán, Pascual Huentequeo Pichún Paillalao, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán, Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Licán, Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles and Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe (underlining added). 10. We consider that, similarly, it is necessary to examine the allegation that the conduct of the judges entailed a lack of impartiality, analyzing whether these expressions and the reasoning in the guilty verdicts, which the Court itself indicated “reveal stereotypes and prejudices as grounds for the judgments,” also constitute a violation of the guarantee of judicial impartiality in this case. This analysis is particularly important because these were criminal proceedings in which the accused were sentenced and convicted. In addition, the Judgment does not provide any reasoning as to how the said legal presumption could have had a negative influence on the aspect of the impartiality of the judges on which the alleged violation is centered, especially as it was not even alleged that it was discriminatory.5 4 Para. 228 of the Judgment. 5 In its Merits Report No. 176/10 the Inter-American Commission stated, in both paragraph 283 and in the seventh conclusion (para. 289.7), that Chile had violated the right to an impartial judge or court to the detriment of the eight presumed victims in this case. Despite the fact that, in the said paragraph 283, the Inter-American Commission does not include arguments to support the alleged violation with regard to Víctor Ancalaf Llaupe and that the Center for Justice and International Law (hereinafter “CEJIL”) — Víctor Ancalaf’s representative — did not argue that his client’s guarantee of impartiality had been violated in relation to the decisions made based on prejudices, we consider that its analysis would have been admissible in application of the iura novit curia principle, which has solidly support in international case law. This principle allows the Court to examine possible violations of the norms of the American Convention that have not been alleged by either the Commission or the victims or their representatives, provided that the latter have been able to express their respective positions in relation to the facts that support them. Thus, the Court has used this principle since its first judgment on merits and on other occasions to declare the violation of rights that had not been directly alleged by the parties, but that were revealed from the analysis of the facts in dispute, because this principle authorizes the Inter-American Court, provided that the factual framework of the case is respected, to classify the juridical situation or relation in dispute in a different way than the parties did. For example, the violation of rights that had not been cited by the parties was declared, in application of the iura novit curia principle in the following cases, inter alia: (i) in the Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras the violation of Article 1(1) of the Convention was declared; (ii) in the Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela the violation of Article 9 of the American Convention was declared; (iii) in the Case of Bayarri v. Argentina the violation of Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture was declared; (iv) in the Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama the violation of Article I of the Convention on Forced Disappearance, in relation to Article II of this instrument was declared; (v) in the Case of Kimel v. Argentina the violation of Article 9 of the American Convention was declared; (vi) in the Case of Bueno Alves the violation of Article 5(1) of the American Convention was declared to the detriment of the next of kin of Mr. Bueno Alves; (vii) in the Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia the violation of Article 11(2) of the Convention was declared, and (viii) in the Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay the violation of Article 3 of the American Convention was declared. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 163; Case of Furlan and family members v. Argentina, para. 55, and Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164, para. 70. 3