75. The Court considers it pertinent to admit the testimony of the alleged victim (supra para. 72), to the extent that it is adapted to the purpose defined by the President in the Order that required it (supra para. 8). Pursuant to the Court’s case law, since the alleged victim has an interest in the case, his testimony will not be assessed alone, but rather together with all the evidence in the proceedings, because it is useful insofar as it can provide further information on the alleged violations and their consequences.23 76. Regarding the expert opinion provided by Natalia Sergi, in its observations, the State indicated that the report “lack[ed] the necessary elements to be considered an expert opinion” and exceeded the purpose of the opinion defined in the President’s Order of April 15, 2011. The Court finds it pertinent to admit this evidence insofar as it is adapted to the purpose defined in the Order requiring it (supra para. 8). VI ARTICLES 8 AND 25 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION 77. In this chapter, the Court will proceed to analyze the facts concerning the claim for compensation in the administrative proceedings, regarding which the Commission and the representative allege the violation of the judicial guarantees and protection established in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention. Arguments of the parties 78. In the section of the application relating to the administrative proceedings, the Inter-American Commission indicated that Jorge Grande had filed a claim for damages against the State to repair the procedural violations that occurred during the criminal proceeding. The claim was based on: “(1) unconstitutional searches had been conducted; (2) on that unlawful basis, a trial was held that lasted almost nine years; (3) that trial entailed [his] detention and prosecution for an extended period, [and[ (4) lastly, the charges were dismissed, upon recognition of the irregular act.” In addition, it observed that the main arguments used during the administrative proceeding were: (a) ”the existence or inexistence of a judicial error in the assessment of the evidence during the criminal proceeding, based on article 1112 of the Civil Code, even though this article is more comprehensive and refers to the existence of any act or omission by public officials in the exercise of their functions,” and (b) “the alleged procedural inactivity of Mr. Grande.” 79. In this regard, the Commission indicated that, in the administrative sphere, the remedy filed by the alleged victim was “rejected without taking into account the illegality of the evidence that had already been declared in the criminal proceeding, and without considering the prolonged delay in reaching a decision in the case.” To the contrary, special attention was given to “Mr. Grande’s alleged passivity,” as if the “[o]bligation to advance a criminal proceeding and to prove his innocence corresponded to the defendant.” This constituted “a criterion that is inconsistent with the provisions of the American Convention and inter-American case law.” The Commission concluded that “[a]lthough the State itself, through the Federal Appellate 23 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43; Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, supra note 19, para. 34, and Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, supra note 14, para. 42. 18