sufficient grounds for the decision to use said case law. 3. The Court's power to use this principle does not exempt it from justifying its application, nor from using it in a moderate and cautious manner. In this regard, it is relevant, on one hand, to take into account that the facts 4 always establish a limit to the right, in the sense that the task of identifying and applying rights must be based on the factual framework established in the merits report; and, on the other hand, that it must be ensured that the principle of equality of arms is not affected and, in particular, the right of defense of the States. 4. In this sense, and as previously stated by Judge Sierra Porto in his partially dissenting opinion in the case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru, 5 it is a power that must be used under certain criteria of reasonableness and relevance, such as when "the violation of human rights is manifest or when the representatives or the Commission have committed a serious oversight or error, so that the Court can remedy a possible injustice, but this principle should not be used to surprise a State with a violation that it did not foresee in the least and that it had no opportunity to remedy or dispute, not even on the facts.” 5. None of the aforementioned exceptional hypotheses were met in this case. On the contrary, the facts before this Court showed that the removal of Mr. Nissen had been carried out in violation of the rules of due process, which constituted an undue infringement of his right to remain in the position of prosecutor on a basis of equality. 6. Consequently, the legal discussion that took place here was related to the existence of an effective violation -or not- of the right recognized in Article 23(1)(c) of the Convention. 7. Based on the evidence incorporated into the proceedings, the Court decided to declare the international responsibility of the State of Paraguay for the violation of the aforementioned rule. The State was informed from the outset of the victim's invocation of this provision and had the opportunity to dispute 29, 2006; Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia, Judgment of July 1, 2006; Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil, Judgment of July 4, 2006; Bueno Alves v. Argentina, Judgment of May 11, 2007; Kimel v. Argentina, Judgment of May 2, 2008; Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, Judgment of August 12, 2008; Bayarri v. Argentina, Judgment of October 30, 2008; González et al (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, request for the expansion of alleged victims and refusal to submit documentary evidence, January 19, 2009; Escher et al. v. Brazil, Judgment of July 6, 2009; Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela, Judgment of November 20, 2009; Vélez Loor v. Panama, Judgment of November 23, 2010; Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador, Judgment of May 19, 2011; Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, Judgment of August 31, 2011; Grande v. Argentina, Judgment of August 31, 2011; Furlán and family v. Argentina, Judgment of August 31, 2012; Gudiel Álvarez et al. ("Diario Militar") v. Guatemala, Judgment of November 20, 2012; Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, Judgment of May 21, 2013; Landaeta Brothers et al. v. Venezuela, Judgment of August 27, 2014; Expelled Dominican and Haitians v. Dominican Republic, Judgment of August 28, 2014; Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, Judgment of August 28, 2014; Rochac Hernández et al. v. El Salvador, Judgment of October 14, 2014; Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru, Judgment of April 17, 2015; Peasant Community of Santa Barbara v. Peru, Judgment of September 1, 2015; Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v. Suriname, Judgment of November 25, 2015; I. V. v. Bolivia, Judgment of November 30, 2016; Acosta et al. v. Nicaragua, Judgment of March 25, 2017; Lagos del Campo v. Peru, Judgment of August 31, 2017; Vereda La Esperanza v. Colombia, Judgment of August 31, 2017; San Miguel Sosa et al. v. Venezuela, Judgment of February 8, 2018; Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico, Judgment of November 28, 2018; Muelle Flores v. Peru, Judgment of March 6, 2019; Rodríguez Revolorio et al. v. Guatemala, Judgment of October 14, 2019; Indigenous Communities of the Lhaka Honhat Association (Our Land) v. Argentina, Judgment of February 6, 2020; Hernández v. Argentina, Judgment of November 22, 2019; Cuyo Lavy et al. v. Peru, Judgment of September 28, 2021; Former Employees of the Judiciary v. Guatemala, Judgment of November 17, 2021, and Casierra Quiñonez et al. v. Ecuador, Judgment of May 11, 2022. 4 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, paragraph 32. 5 Position reiterated in their opinions regarding the cases of Rodríguez Revolorio et al. v. Guatemala and Indigenous Communities of the Lhaka Honhat Association (Our Land) v. Argentina. 2