effective the procedural power of locus standi in judicio that is recognized in the Court’s Rules of Procedure, without detracting from the limits of the Convention on the participation and the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Court, nor diminishing or infringing upon the right of defense of the State, which has the procedural opportunity to respond to the arguments of the Commission and representatives at all procedural stages. In this way, the Court must ultimately decide each case based on the admissibility of arguments of such nature in order to safeguard the procedural equality of the parties.264 191. In the present case, the Court notes that in its admissibility report, the Commission “declared the application admissible […] in relation to the rights enshrined in Articles 23, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 therein.” 265 Subsequently, in its report on the merits, the Commission outlined explicitly that "in its arguments [...] the petitioner alleged violations of Article 24 of the Convention due to the application of a discriminatory standard." According to the Commission, at that time, the representatives "[b]ased their argument on the basis of statements issued in the media by Mr. Oscar Perez, [...], and that those same operational circumstances involved Mr. Regulus Hernandez, Glenn Rivas, Cruz Ortiz, Candido Rodriguez, Tirso Colmenares, Oswaldo Diaz, Justo Hernandez [and] Jenny Cedeño." Nevertheless, the Commission did not find the State's responsibility for the alleged violation of Article 24 of the Convention. 266 Consequently, in its application – which establishes the factual basis of the case—the Commission did not mention the mentioned facts and the alleged violation involved (supra para. 2 and 3). 192. Moreover, the Court notes that in the brief of pleadings and motions, Mr. López Mendoza argued the alleged violation of equal protection before the law indicating that the National Electoral Council allowed certain persons to participate as candidates in the electoral processes of 2004 and 2005 who were sanctioned by disqualification from holding public office (supra para. 187). Moreover, the Court takes into consideration that the State indicated that these persons “were not disqualified from holding public office,” justifying this affirmation with 4 reasons, that is: i) because the administrative actions were in the administrative forum before the Comptroller General of the Republic, pending the interposition or decision of the corresponding administrative remedies; ii) because the sanctions were imposed on dates subsequent to the polls; iii) because the National Electoral Council was not given notice of the sanctions imposed, or iv) because the persons that ran for office were no longer disqualified from holding public office given that the period of the sanction had lapsed. (supra para. 188). 193. In this regard, the Tribunal highlighted that the State presented evidence aimed at establishing that the mentioned persons, allegedly disqualified from holding public office, were not disqualified at the time of the election of 2004 and 2005, to which their cases involved one of the 4 reasons explained by the State (supra para. 188 and 192). In this sense, in the case file, inter alia, the order of November 22, 2004, issued by the Comptroller General of the Republic of the President of the National Electoral Council (CNE) where a list was provided of 118 persons where the sanction was imposed for disqualification from holding public office. 267 Moreover, the State rendered a copy of the 264 Cf. Case of “Mapiripán Massacre” V. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs, supra note 260, para. 58; Case of Vélez Loor, supra note 213, para. 43, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón, supra note 13, para. 134. 265 Admissibility Report No. 67/08, supra note 1, folio 10. 266 Report on the Merits No. 92/09, supra note 2, folios 12 to 52. 267 Cf. Official letter No. 01-00-000730 of November 22, 2004, rendered by the Comptroller General of the Republic to the President of the National Electoral Council (CNE) (Case file of annexes to the answer to the application, annex H, tome XXXIX, folios 13814 to 13830). 72