5. 6. 7. 8. 9. under the general principle of law, iura novit curia, which international jurisprudence has repeatedly relied upon, meaning that the judge has the power and even the duty to apply the relevant legal provisions in a case, even if the parties do not expressly invoke them." 6 However, the Court's authority to utilize this principle does not exempt it from justifying its application and doing so in a moderate and cautious manner. In this regard, it is relevant, on one hand, to take into account that the facts 7 always establish a limit to the right, in the sense that the task of identifying and applying rights must be based on the factual framework established in the merits report and, on the other hand, that it must be ensured that the principle of equality of arms is not affected and, in particular, the right of defense of the States. In line with these ideas, and as Judge Sierra Porto has expressed in his partially dissenting opinion in the case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru, 8 it is a power that must be used under certain criteria of reasonableness and relevance, such as when "the violation of human rights is evident or when the representatives or the Commission have committed a serious omission or error, so that the Court can remedy a possible injustice, but this principle should not be used to surprise a State with a violation that it did not foresee in the slightest and had no opportunity to dispute, not even regarding the facts." Understood that the principle of iura novit curia allows for the determination of applicable law - as long as it falls within the Court's jurisdiction - the facts submitted to the knowledge of this Court constitute a violation of the victim's right to access public functions in their country on equal terms. Indeed, as expressed, the case relates to the international responsibility of the Ecuadorian State for a series of violations committed within the disciplinary process that led to the dismissal of Mr. Mina Cuero from his position as a police officer, which, by its nature, constitutes a public function. In the Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua, the Court stated, regarding Article 23 of the Convention, that this provision enshrines the rights to participate in the conduct of public affairs, to vote, to be elected, and to have access to public functions, which must be guaranteed by the State under conditions of equality, 9 and to have access to public functions, which must be guaranteed by the State under conditions of equality. The State must create the necessary conditions and mechanisms to ensure that these rights can be effectively exercised. 10 Furthermore, it was indicated that the right to have access to public functions on equal terms protects access to a direct form of participation in the design, implementation, development, and execution of state political guidelines through public functions, these general conditions of equality encompass both access to public functions through popular election and through appointment or designation. 11 In the Case Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, it added that Article 23(1)(c) does not establish the right to access a public position, but to do so in “general conditions of equality.” This means that the respect and guarantee of this right are fulfilled when "the criteria and procedures for appointment, promotion, suspension, and dismissal [are] reasonable and objective" and that "individuals are not subjected to discrimination" in the exercise of this right. 12 Although neither the Commission nor the representatives alleged a violation Cf. Paragraph 163. Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 32. 8 Position reiterated in their votes regarding the cases of Rodríguez Revolorio et al. v. Guatemala and Indigenous Communities of the Lhaka Honhat Association (Our Land) v. Argentina. 9 Cf. Paragraph 194. 10 Cf. Paragraph 195. 11 Cf. Paragraph 200. 12 Cf. Paragraph 138. 6 7 3