12 that its evidentiary value be considered only with regard to issues that effectively meet the purpose set forth and the opportune procedural moment by the President of the Court (supra para. 8), taking into account the full body of evidence, the comments of the parties, and the rules of sound judgment. The comments of the representative will be considered, where pertinent, in the analysis of the merits of the dispute. 48. With regard to the expert testimony from Mr. Aquije Solier, during the course of the public hearing, the representative submitted a document that, according to his allegations, should discredit the expert statement. The representative filed a copy of the document identified as a “Selective Direct Adjudication” related to consultation work on this case.24 The representative stated that “it is completely contradictory” for SEDAPAL to present its proposal for reparations supported by Mr. Aquije Solier’s expert statement on June 15, 2010, when “one month later” it was holding a “[t]ender for [c]ontracting [c]onsulting [s]ervices in order to prepare an expert accountancy report to determine the amount owed” to each of the victims in this case. 49. In this regard, the State reported that the indicated direct award process “was declared null and void” because it “did not receive any offers.” According to the State, “the representative’s statements are false [...] given [that] they attempt to incorrectly maintain that the expert testimony” of Mr. Aquije Solier “was the result of the [aforementioned] selective award process.” The Tribunal observes that the tender process begun by the State does not affect the admissibility of the evidence. In addition, the State’s clarifications in the sense that the tender was declared null and void have the effect of eliminating the basis for the dispute. The section on the merits of the case will examine whether the evidence on the record on the aforementioned tender proceeding contains elements affecting the conclusions of the expert testimony presented by the State (infra para. 114). VII RIGHT TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION AND TO PRIVATE PROPERTY WITH REGARD TO OBLIGATIONS TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE RIGHTS 50. In this case, the Court has accepted the State’s acknowledgment of international responsibility related to the lack of judicial protection with regard to the retroactive application of laws to the salary scales system (supra paras. 23 and 26). To determine the scope of this violation of Article 25(1)25 related to Article 1(1)26 of the American Convention and to resolve the dispute regarding the violation of Articles 21(1) and 21(2)27 of the American Convention, as well as the other disputes that persist, the Court 24 According to the document, the purpose of the tender is to “contract consulting services related to IACHR case No. 12.384-SIFUSE for expert accountant court testimony on salary scales in order to determine the amount owed to each of the plaintiffs, including the corresponding legal interest, to a complaint filed by the SIFUSE, and to support the criteria for the calculation.” Requirements of the Selective Direct Adjudication No 0043-2010-SEDAPAL for “CONSULTING SERVICES RELATED TO IACHR CASE No. 12.384-SIFUSE,” which have been published on SEDAPAL’s website. (case file on the Merits, tome II, folio 561). 25 Article 25(1) of the Convention indicates that, “Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties.” 26 Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of the Convention states: The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition. [...] 27 Articles 21(1) and 21(2) (Right to Private Property) of the Convention stipulate that: