50 186. The representative held that “the removal of the alleged victims from the First Court” for political reasons “prevented them from exercising public office, such as the administration of justice, which is tantamount to restricting their access to public office.” Moreover, it stated that “the two judges who systematically challenged the judgments of the First Court regarding those cases that had solid political connotations […] were not sanctioned for [the aforementioned] ‘inexcusable judicial error’” “but were promoted” as Justices of the STJ. On the contrary, the victims “were not admitted to the Judiciary […] because [… a]fter being removed […] they are not allowed to access any judicial office;” a disqualification that is of “permanent nature.” However, for judges Marrero and Morales “that disqualification does not exist since they were not subject to disciplinary sanctions.” Ultimately, “[t]hat discriminatory treatment reflects that either such ‘inexcusable judicial error’ did not exist and was nothing but an excuse to continue with the ideological purging of the Judiciary, or those who committed that error did not enjoy equal protection under the law and had no equal access to public office.” 187. The Commission did not allege any violation of Article 23 of the Convention as it held that “the victims […] had equal access to public office” and that “the discussion regarding Article 23 is absorbed by the analysis of the provisions of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention.” As regards the violation of Article 24, in the report on admissibility, the Commission held the petition was inadmissible since, in its opinion, “the petitioners have not accounted for the differences between the retiring status of the three removed judges and that of the two judges actually retired,” therefore, “[g]iven the diverging circumstances, differentiated treatment as to retirement benefits would not purport discrimination.” 188. The State alleged that there was no discrimination since “the petitioners could not be granted retirement benefits, as they had neither served for ten years in the Judiciary nor for twenty years in the Public Administration.” As to the appointment of Judges Morales and Marrero in the STJ, the state indicated that the alleged victims “did not participate as candidates in the selection process, which was publicly called and in which the [aforementioned] former judges did participate as candidates.” The State added that there is no “reliable evidence” of “a series of legal prohibitions that would hinder the candidacy of the alleged victims.” In this regard, the State mentioned that the prohibition could only derive from “an express act of disobedience by the National Assembly that, on the basis of such regulatory provisions […], prevents the candidacy of former provisional judges for the corresponding selection.” 189. The Court has established that the alleged victim, his next of kin or his representatives may invoke rights other than those included in the Commission’s application based on the facts presented by the Commission.203 In addition, the Court considers that, even though the petition was declared inadmissible by the 2. The law may regulate the exercise of the rights and opportunities referred to in the preceding paragraph only on the basis of age, nationality, residence, language, education, civil and mental capacity, or sentencing by a competent court in criminal proceedings. 202 Article 24 of the Convention states that: All persons are equal before the law. Consequently, they are entitled, without discrimination, to equal protection of the law. 203 Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 179; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 125; Case of De La Cruz Flores v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 18, 2004. Series C No. 115, para. 122, and Case of Yatama, supra note 63, para. 183.