of the other alleged facts and violations, considering that they are all part of the same set of circumstances.9 22. In the particular circumstances of this case, the Court will gauge the scope of the recognition of responsibility as it evaluates the facts and examines the merits of the alleged rights violations. Because these claims remain in dispute, the Court will deliver a judgment setting forth the events that occurred, based on evidence gathered during the process before it and the acceptance of the facts, as well as legal consequences and applicable reparations. It is also fitting in the instant case to examine the facts concerning the violation of the right to judicial guarantees and the right to judicial protection and, because they were not acknowledged by the State, the alleged violations of the principle of judicial independence, the principle of freedom from ex post facto laws, and the principle of political rights. 23. Finally, the Court would recall that the State raised a preliminary objection in its answering brief. It nevertheless acknowledges the scope of the State's recognition of responsibility in the case at hand, and particularly its stance during the public hearing, when it said, “...the State has retracted its preliminary objection in view of its act of acquiescence,” and therefore the Court will not examine the preliminary objection in the understanding that Ecuador has withdrawn it. V EVIDENCE A. Admissibility of documentary evidence 24. The Court received several documents submitted as evidence by the Commission, the representatives and the State (supra paras. 5, 6 and 7), and as in other cases, will admit them in the understanding that they were submitted within the procedural time limits (Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure).10 Moreover, under the terms of the Court’s order of July 19, 2022 (supra, para. 9), an expert statement delivered in another proceeding was added to the case file as documentary evidence.11 25. The Court also received documents annexed to the State’s final written arguments,12 submitted within the specified time limits. The representatives held, in this regard, that 9 Cf. Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (The Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 14, 2014. Series C No. 287, para. 27, and Case of Palacio Urrutia et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 31. 10 Cf. Documentary evidence may be submitted, in general and pursuant to Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, with the application brief, the pleadings and motions brief, or the answering brief, as applicable, and no evidence may be admitted if presented outside these time limits, except in the cases set forth in Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure (that is, force majeure or serious impediment), or in the case of a supervening fact that took place subsequently to these procedural stages. Cf. Case of Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, paras. 17 and 18, and Case of Brítez Arce et al. v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2022. Series C No. 474, para. 24. 11 The expert statement delivered in the Case of Quintana Coello et al. v. Ecuador by Param Cumaraswamy. 12 Annex 1: Judgment 472-2001-RA of the Constitutional Court, published in the Official Gazette, No. 517 of February 19, 2002; annex 2: Judgment 100-2001-TP of the Constitutional Court, published in the Official Gazette, No. 364 of July 9, 2001; annex 3: Judgment 769-2003-RA of the Constitutional Court, published in the Official Gazette, No. 334 of May 13, 2004; annex 4: Basic Law on Elections and Political Organizations of the Republic of Ecuador (Democratic Code), enacted in the Supplement to the Official Gazette, No. 578 of April 27, 2009; annex 5: Basic Regulations for the Operation of the National Council of Elections and the Provincial 7