demonstrate that Mr. López Mendoza was a victim of discriminatory treatment: i) because before the release of budgetary resources to meet labor obligations for purposes of employees of the Mayor’s Office (firefighters, teachers, and retirees, among others), he was [not] given the same treatment as the Comptroller, [when] the use by the President of the Republic and the Minister of Finance was public and notorious of budget resources originally intended to contribute to the Investment Fund for Macroeconomic Stabilization." According to the representatives, "nothing was said about it, validating in this way a flagrant violation of that principle of equal protection of citizens before the law" and ii) because "the National Electoral Council allowed the registration, application, and announced citizens who were in the same situation as disqualified politicians.” 188. On its behalf, the State noted that the arguments of the representatives were based on the declarations of some persons made before means of communication, which “could not be considered sufficient evidence of the violation.” 263 The State noted that Mr. López Mendoza “referenced candidates that applied to the polls carried out in October 2004, and December 2005, [that] were not disqualified from public office, because the administrative actions were in the administrative forum before the Comptroller General of the Republic, pending interposition or decision of the corresponding administrative resources; or because the sanctions were imposed on dates subsequent to the dates of the polls; or because the National Electoral Council was not given notice of the sanctions imposed or that the people that ran were no longer disqualified from holding public office because the period had passed for the sanctions of disqualification.” As a consequence, “at the time the polls were held […], the National Electoral Council impeded the registration of those aspiring for a position through popular vote, on the basis of facts or situations unknown to it as the reasons were not established in the administrative forum.” Thus, for the State, “[t]he difference in the cases noted is objective and reasonable given that the difference in reported cases is objective and reasonable regarding the factual circumstances, since at the time of the nomination of [Mr. López Mendoza] the sanction for disqualification from holding public office imposed was final." 189. In short, the State said that "discriminatory treatment would mean that the National Electoral Council allowed the candidacy for the elections held in November 2008, of people who were on equal footing with [Mr.] López Mendoza; this did not happen because the electoral body rejected nominations for elected office not only of [Mr. López Mendoza] but of all the people who were disqualified from holding public office.” 2. Considerations of the Court 190. Considering that the violation of Article 24 was not argued by the Inter-American Commission (supra para. 186), the Court reiterates that the alleged victim and its representatives can invoke the violation of other rights distinct from those already stated in the application so long as this heads to the facts already contained in the application (supra para. 27) and is done at the appropriate procedural moment –in the brief of pleadings and motions-, which occurred in this case. This possibility is meant to make 263 The State noted that the respective argument was based on: i) the Statement of Mr. Oscar Pérez of May 13, 2008, issued by a television medium; ii) “a public interview on June 16, 2008, in a newspaper of national circulation, where it had been affirmed, that despite the disqualification, the National Electoral Council, permitted his candidcy for the 2004 elections,” and that of Messers. Régulo Hernández, Gleen Rivas, Cruz Ortiz, Cándido Rodríguez, Tirso Colmenares, Oswaldo Díaz, and Justo Hernández, and iii) the interview of Chief Chancellor of the National Electoral Council, Vicente Díaz, on May 12, 2008, “in a newspapaer of national circulation,” wherein it stated that “the registration and candidacy of [Messers.] Jenny Cedeño, Gleen Rivas, and Antonio Barreto Sira, was allowed for the elections [of] 2004, despite their disqualification.” Cf. Brief of final arguments of the State, supra note 30, folio 1481. 71