annexes one, two, and three, pertaining to the Ecuador’s Constitutional Court verdicts 4722001-RA, 100-2001-TP and 769-2003-RA, do not address the judicial powers of the TSE to enforce electoral law, and therefore are not relevant to the case. They further commented on annexes four and five, noting that these laws were not in effect at the time the events of the instant case occurred. The Commission had no comment on the annexes. 26. The Court notes, regarding the documents submitted as annexes one, two, and three, that the State has not justified the reason why, under the terms of Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, these annexes should be admitted on an exceptional basis, as they are dated prior to the answering brief. The documents are therefore deemed time-barred and inadmissible. The Court also notes that annexes four, five, six, seven, eight, nine and ten are already contained in the Court’s case file, as they were submitted as annexes ten, eight, five, one, six and seven, respectively, of the State’s answering brief. It is therefore unnecessary to discuss the admissibility of the annexes identified with the numbers four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, and ten, that the State attached to its final written arguments, under the terms of Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure. B. Admissibility of evidence by witnesses and expert witnesses 27. This Court holds admissible the statements rendered in the public hearing13 and before a public attestor,14 as they are relevant to the cause of action set in the President’s order for submission in the instant case.15 VI FACTS 28. The Court will first consider the scope of the State’s recognition of responsibility as it outlines the facts of the case, based on the corpus of facts developed in the Report on the Merits, additional facts narrated by the representatives in their pleadings and motions brief and the evidence contained in the case file, in the following order: (a) the relevant factual framework, (b) background, (c) the process by which Mr. Aguinaga Aillón was appointed to the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, (d) the removal of Mr. Aguinaga Aillón from the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, and (e) the remedies available to counter congressional resolution 25-160. A. Relevant regulatory framework Boards of Elections, published in the Official Gazette, No. 115 of January 25, 1999; annex 6: Law on Political Parties, published in the Official Gazette, No. 196 of November 1, 2000; annex 7: Law on Elections, enacted in the Official Gazette, No. 117 of July 11, 2002; annex 8: Basic Law for the Control of Electoral Expenditures and Electoral Advertising, enacted in the Supplement to the Official Gazette No. 41 of March 22, 2000; annex 9: Enabling Regulations for the Law on Elections, issued under resolution 001, published in the Supplement to the Official Gazette No. 39 of March 20, 2000, and annex 10: Rules of Operation for National and Provincial Electoral Organizations, enacted in the Official Gazette No. 366 of July 11, 2001. 13 The Court received statements in the public hearing by alleged victim Carlos Julio Aguinaga Aillón and by expert witnesses Ruth Hidalgo, brought by the representatives, and Diego Jadán-Heredia, brought by the State. In response to a request made by the Court in the public hearing, on September 1, 2022, the expert witnesses submitted written accounts of their statements, which have been added to the evidence file on the case. Expert witness Medardo Oleas Rodríguez delivered a statement before a public attestor, which the Court received on September 1, 2022 (evidence file, folios 2745 to 2773). 14 15 Cf. Case of Aguinaga Aillón v. Ecuador. Notice of hearing. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, July 19, 2022. 8