suitable and effective to redress the alleged violations, and whether they are regular or extraordinary remedies is a secondary matter.” In its opinion, the doctrine of the Inter-American Court has “left the door open in certain cases—those in which the situation alleged can be effectively remedied through the use of an extraordinary remedy—for the obligation to exhaust extraordinary measures.” Finally, the State said it was a “mistake to bring a case before a subsidiary international justice system prior to the conclusion of the local proceedings.” 31. As for the allegation that the facts do not describe human rights violations, the State maintained that, with the February 28, 2012 decision in which the National Court of Justice admitted the pardon of the sentence and the remission of the damages and court costs, and ordered that the case be shelved “the outcome of the case for criminal defamation [injurias y calumnias] reaffirms that the facts stated by the alleged victims do not describe a violation of the rights protected by the American Convention, and demonstrates that the petition is manifestly groundless.” It maintained that “The specific harm that the petitioners wish to attribute to the State has not arisen: Mr. Emilio Palacio and the other defendants never paid a single cent, nor did they spend a single minute in prison.” The State concluded by affirming that “The System cannot hear and decide cases through the individual petition system based on assumptions, and in the instant case, the petitioner has not been able to prove how the State is responsible for violating the right to personal liberty, the right to a fair trial, or the right to property, in the manner in which the content of those articles of the Convention has been developed in the case law, as the judgment was never enforced.” 32. Finally, in communications dated July 24 and September 19, 2012, the State requested that the IACHR’s then-Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, Catalina Botero, “be removed from the examination of this case before the Inter-American Commission,” as it considered that the press releases issued by the Special Rapporteur “have adversely affected Ecuador’s right to a defense, by taking an institutional stance on the responsibility of Ecuador with respect to the petition de Emilio Palacio and others.” Ecuador also requested the recusal of the Commissioners “who supported the Special Rapporteur’s actions.” IV. ANALYSIS A. Threshold issue: request for recusal of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression and the members of the IACHR 33. Under the American Convention, the main function of the Inter-American Commission is to observe and defend human rights in the region. In order to fulfill this mandate, the IACHR was given the authority to monitor the situation of human rights in the region and recommend that the OAS Member States take measures that contribute to the protection of human rights in the countries of the hemisphere. The decisions and reports it issues pursuant to this authority, especially those issued through its different thematic rapporteurships, are based on the thorough study and deliberation of the information received, and their purpose is to promote the national implementation of the applicable human rights standards and contribute to the capacity-building of the countries in that respect. It also plays a preventive role, through the early alert of situations that jeopardize human rights in the region. 34. Although it is distinct in nature, this function must be seen as complementary to the other powers of the IACHR, such as the processing and examination of individual petitions alleging the violation of human rights, the purpose of which is to make recommendations to the responsible State in order to reestablish the enjoyment of rights to the extent possible, so that similar acts do not occur again in the future, and to ensure that the events in question are investigated and redressed—which ultimately also aims to reinforce State responsibility for the protection of human rights. 35. To this extent, a public statement from the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission that, after a rigorous examination of the information, alerted the State to possible violations of the individual right to freedom of expression, cannot be interpreted as compromising the impartiality of the IACHR; rather, it is the exercise of its powers of promotion and protection. 7