34 practices that are within such scope, if applicable.118 The second one imposes an obligation on the States to prevent further violations of human rights and therefore, to adopt all legal, administrative and other measures necessary to prevent further occurrence of similar facts.119 123. In regard to the domestic legislation, as to the constitutional, civil-procedural, administrative-contentious procedural and administrative procedural aspects applied to the instant case, the Court considers that, after having analyzed it, said legislation adjusts to the provisions established in the American Convention. Moreover, this Tribunal notes that, as established in this Judgment, the delay in the proceedings and the ineffectiveness of the remedies are not the direct result of the existence of rules incompatible with the Convention or of the lack of rules that prevent this situation. Likewise, the Court considers that there is no proof of the fact that the alleged violations and circumstances of the case at hand constitute a generalized problem in the processing of this type of proceedings in Ecuador. 124. Consequently, this Tribunal cannot conclude that the State has failed to comply with Article 2 of the American Convention. VII ARTICLES 24 (RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION)120 IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1) (OBLIGATION TO RESPECT THE RIGHTS) 121 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION 125. The Inter-American Commission did not submit any arguments related to Article 24 of the American Convention. 126. In the brief of requests and arguments, the representatives alleged that the violation of the right to property led to the violation of the right to equal protection before the law. To such end, they argued that: a) since the Municipality denied the authorization to Salvador Chiriboga siblings to develop a piece of property, they turned to the administrative courts where they claimed "[...] equal treatment before the law[...]", since in an adjacent property, the Municipality did grant the authorization to develop. Neverthless, said claim was declared inadmissible. By virtue of the foregoing, according to the representatives, said decision constituted a discriminatory act inasmuch as Salvador Chiriboga siblings could not exercise their right to property, in conditions identical to the ones exercised by the owners of the adjacent piece of lands; and b) unlike the other people whose properties were also declared to be public utility, the State restricted the right of Salvador Chiriboga sibling to access to a judicial procedure within a reasonable time, in order to determine their rights, which placed them in a position inferior to the other people who are in similar conditions. 117 Cf. Case of Caesar v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 11, 2005. Series C No. 123, para. 94 and 132. Case of Yatama, supra note 52, para. 254; and Case of Zambrano Vélez, supra note 53, para. 57. 118 Cf. Case of La Cantuta v. Perú. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C N°. 162, para. 172; and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 53, para. 57. 119 Cf. Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 53, para. 153. 120 In its pertinent part, Article 24 (Right to Equal Protection) provides for: All persons are equal before the law. Consequently, they are entitled, without discrimination, to equal protection of the law. 121 Cf. supra note 45.