Tribunal’s rulings (infra para. 70), but rather it limited itself to noting that the alleged victim should have presented said civil action, which is of an ordinary [civil] nature. The Court also observes that the civil action only allows for the reparation of damage that is of a patrimonial nature and therefore does not constitute an appropriate measure to fully achieve the objective desired by Mr. Mejía Idrovo regarding his reinstatement. 33. With regard to the action of noncompliance presented by the alleged victim before the Constitutional Court, the Inter-American Court notes that said action of noncompliance was introduced in the Ecuadorian legal system by a constitutional reform in 2008, and therefore, was not accessible to the alleged victim at the moment the relevant events of this case transpired. Notwithstanding the aforementioned, the Court notes that the alleged victim filed said action on April 22, 2009, and as indicated by the State, this remedy was opportunely exhausted. 34. Consequently, the Court dismisses the objection of non-exhaustion of remedies raised by Ecuador. IV JURISDICTION 35. The Court of the American Convention since the Court on July has jurisdiction to hear the present case, pursuant to Articles 62(3) Convention, given that Ecuador has been a State Party to the December 28, 1977, and recognized the contentious jurisdiction of 24, 1984. V EVIDENCE 36. Based on that established in Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as the jurisprudence of the Court regarding evidence and its assessment19, the Court will proceed to examine and assess the documentary supporting evidence submitted by the Commission, the representatives, and the State on the various procedural opportunities, as well as the statements rendered by means of affidavit and those rendered at the public hearing held in the present case. Therefore, the Court will head to the rules of competent analysis, within the corresponding legal framework.20 A. Statement of the alleged victim and expert evidence 19 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) V. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 76; Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. V. Perú. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 4, 2011. Series C No. 223, para. 35; and Case of Vera Vera et al. V. Ecuador, supra note 12, para. 19. 20 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) V. Guatemala. Merits, supra note 19, para. 76; Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. V. Perú, supra note 19, para. 39, and Case of Vera Vera et al. V. Ecuador, supra note 12, para. 19. 11