annexes presented and highlighted that “this was not another procedural opportunity to expand on existing arguments.” In this regard, the Court notes that in fact the representatives in their communication of May 4, 2011, made observations, on the one hand, to the annexes themselves, and in other opportunities, they presented arguments regarding the merits of the case. Given the aforementioned, this Court decides to admit, in accordance with Article 46 of the Rules of Procedure, the brief of the representatives yet only where they present observations regarding the annexes presented by the State. To this end, the Court takes into account the observations of the State and the body of evidence in order to assess the mentioned brief, according to the rules of sound judgment. C. Admission of the statement of the alleged victim and the expert evidence 42. Regarding the statement of the alleged victim and twp of the expert witnesses (supra para. 37), the Court finds them pertinent only to the extent that they comply with the purpose defined by the President of the Court in the Order which required they be submitted, those of which will be assessed in the corresponding chapter. In regard to the statement of the alleged victim, for having an interest in the present case, it will not be assessed separately, but rather within the body of evidence in the proceeding.26 On the other hand, in its final written arguments regarding the expert report rendered by Mr. Jaime Rafael Vintinilla, the State noted that the expert witness “begins with value judgments and fails to recognize, or diminishes the important changes being experienced in Ecuador since the approval by referendum in 2008 of the new Montecristi Constitution.” As such, the Court finds them pertinent only to the extent that they comply with the purpose defined by the President of the Court in the Order which required they be submitted (supra para. 8), and assesses it in conjunction with the other elements of the body of evidence, taking into account the observations made by the State. VI ARTICLES 8 AND 25 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION 43. In this Chapter, the Court will refer, first to some relevant facts in regard to the proceedings carried out within the domestic jurisdiction that are related to the alleged violations to judicial guarantees [fair trial] and judicial protection. Subsequently, it will refer to the arguments of the parties in this regard, and will analyze the guarantees involved in the proceeding in light of Article 8(1) of the Convention, and effective judicial protection in the execution of the ruling, enshrined in Articles 25(1) and 25(2)(c) of the American Convention. A. Relevant Facts a) Proceeding before the Council of General Officers of the Land Forces 26 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo V. Perú. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43; Case of Gelman V. Uruguay. Merits and Reparaciones. Judgment of February 24, 2011. Series C No. 221, para. 40, and Case of Vera Vera et al. V. Ecuador, supra note 12, para. 23. 14