of the Central Bank resolving an appeal filed by the petitioners to annul the unfavorable decision issued previously by the said Board (supra para. 88),239 and one case was accepted by a decision resolving an additional claim submitted after the decision that resolved an appeal for annulment admitted based on the constitutional right of petition.240 In the last case, the Court recalls that the procedure before the Central Bank admitted and decided claims filed after the appeals for annulment had been decided or the time limit for their presentation had expired (supra para. 90). In addition, the Court has noted that the evidence used by the administrative body to consider that absence of consent had been proved was offered by the petitioners themselves in most cases, either in the initial claim, or when they were given access to the draft of the unfavorable decision prepared by the Advisory Commission (supra para. 85), or when they presented or substantiated the appeal for annulment (supra para. 88). 172. Having determined that the factual assumptions indicated by the Inter-American Commission and the representatives to argue the said violations were not constituted, the Court concludes that the violation of Article 8(1) of the American Convention has not been proven in this regard. B.2.c) Procedural guarantee of adequate reasoning 173. Furthermore, regarding the alleged violation of Article 24 of the Convention, argued only by the representatives (supra para. 5), the Court reiterates that the alleged victims and their representatives may invoke the violation of rights other than those included in the application, provided they relate to the facts described in the application (supra para. 36) and are alleged at the appropriate procedural opportunity – in the pleadings and motions brief – which occurred in the instant case. 174. The Court recalls that, while the general obligation under Article 1(1) refers to the State’s obligation to respect and guarantee “without discrimination” the rights contained in the American Convention, Article 24 protects the right to “equal protection of the law.” 241 If it is alleged that a State discriminates in the respect or guarantee of a convention-based right, the fact must be analyzed under Article 1(1) and the material right in question. If, to the contrary, the alleged discrimination refers to unequal protection by domestic law, the fact must be examined under Article 24 of the Convention.242 Rivanera de Rosales (File No. 2003/0493) (file of attachments to the application, volume XV, attachment 12 (I), folios 11049 to 11071); (14) Marta Cázeres (File No. 2003/0598) (file of attachments to the application, volume IV, attachment 12 (B), folios 3774 to 3821); (15) Clara Jasinski (File No. 2003/0637) (file of attachments to the application, volume III, attachment 12 (B), folios 3450 to 3490); (16) Raúl Montero (File No. 2003/0469) (file of attachments to the application, volume XVI, attachment 12 (J), folios 11783 to 11786), and (17) Elena Ibarra Acle and Victor Muccia García (File No. 2003/0521) (file of attachments to the application, volume III, attachment 12 (B), folios 3727 and 3728). 239 Cf. the following cases: (1) Rolando Massoni, Martha Moreira and Sandra Massoni (File No. 2003/0228) (file of attachments to the application, volume XVI, attachment 12 (J), folios 11771 to 11774); (2) Kurt Bauer (File No. 2003/1329) (file of attachments to the application, volume XV, attachment 12 (I), folios 11150 to 11153); (3) Ernesto Llovet (File No. 2003/0952) (file of attachments to the application, volume XV, attachment 12 (I), folios 11350 to 11353), and (4) Graciela Cabrera D'Amico (File No. 2003/0880) (file of attachments to the application, volume X, attachment 12 (E), folios 8588 to 8663). 240 Cf. Ximena Camaño Rolando and Ana Laura Camaño Rolando (File No. 2003/0650) (file of attachments to the application, volume I, attachment 12 (A), folios 2315 to 2471). 241 Cf. Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica. Advisory Opinion OC-4/84 of January 19, 1984. Series A No. 4, paras. 53 and 54; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, para. 183, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, supra note 15, para. 253. 242 Cf. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010, Series C No. 215, para. 199; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, supra note 241, para. 183, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, supra note 15, para. 253. 70