Commission. Nevertheless, they also requested that the Court declare a violation of Articles 24 (Right to Equal Protection) and 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Mejía Idrovo. Lastly, they requested various measures of reparation. 5. On June 24, 2010, the State presented its brief containing preliminary objections, answer to the application, and observations to the brief of pleadings and motions (hereinafter “answer to the application”). The State, in its answer, referred to the arguments of fact and of law presented by the Commission and the representatives and requested that the Court accept the preliminary objections and declare that the State did not violate Articles 8(1), 25, 24, 2 and 1(1) of the American Convention, “as it guaranteed and guarantees the protection of human rights, and its corresponding guarantees,” and it referred to the reparations. Moreover, the State filed two preliminary objections, one “arguing Court of Appeals or Fourth Instance,” and the other “arguing the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.” The State appointed Erick Roberts, National Director of Human Rights of the Prosecutor General’s Office, Agent, and Messers. Rodrigo Durango and Alfonso Fonseca Garcés, as Deputy Agents. 6. On August 19 and 21, the Commission and representatives presented, respectively, their written arguments to the brief containing the preliminary objections filed by the State, and they requested the Court to dismiss them and to please continue on with the merits of the case. II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 7. The application was notified to the State3 and the representatives on January 18, 2010. 8. By Order of December 2, 2010, the President of the Court (hereinafter, “the President”) ordered that a statement be rendered before a notary public (affidavit) by an expert witness, and he summoned the parties to a public hearing to hear the statements of the alleged victim and the expert witnesses proposed by the Commission and the State, as well as the oral arguments of the parties regarding the preliminary objections and possible merits, reparations, and costs, and he also set a date of March 28, 2011, for the parties to present their final written arguments. 9. On January 19, 2011, the representatives submitted a “sworn statement” of the expert witness Mr. Víctor Hugo López Vallejo, seven days after the period for submission had lapsed, given that pursuant to Operative Paragraph two of the Order of the President of December 2, 2010, presentation of said statement was set for no later than January 12, 2011. Due to this, following instructions by the President, the 3 When the application was notified to the State, it was informed of its right to assign an ad hoc Judge to participate in the deliberation of the case. On February 11, 2010, the State assigned Mr. Hernán Salgado Pesantes as ad hoc Judge. Nevertheless, on March 2, 2010, Mr. Salgado Pesantes informed the Court that upon being asked by the Prosecutor General of the State he accepted the role, but then, “upon investigating some information regarding this case, [he] established that the petitioner filed to claim before the Constitutional Court of Ecuador for the alleged violation of his rights, and he did so at a time where the [judge] formed part of that body. [He] is certain he acted in this case –as a member of the Court- thereby constitutiting an impediment for him to participate in the matter, pursuant to Article 19(1) of the Rules of the Inter-American Court,” and as a consequence, he presented his excuse to hear the case. On March 4, 2010, the Secretary, following instructions from the President, accepted the mentioned excusal. 4