the crime of slanderous insult, which constitute the subject of the dispute, with the evident procedural limitation of introducing other elements”81. 59. In this regard, the Commission, implementing Article 43.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR, examined the allegations and evidence provided by the parties, and took into account information of public knowledge82, including reports from the IACHR itself on the general situation of the human rights in Ecuador, publications of non-governmental organizations, laws, decrees, and other normative acts in force at the time of the facts of this case. 60. On the other hand, this body has the purpose of issuing recommendations to the States in case human rights of violations, for which purpose it must necessarily assess the circumstances of the case and the context in which they occurred. In addition, it should be recalled that it falls to the State, in accordance with Article 38 of the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR, to provide relevant information to contest the facts alleged by the alleged victims. B. Supervening facts since the admissibility report that may lead to an incidental admissibility analysis 1. Amicus Curiae 61. On November 23, 2015, the Commission was notified of document No. 036301 dated November 19, 2015, in which the State requested the rejection of the presentation of Amicus Curiae by various organizations, and argued that said figure was alien to the process. However, the request submitted was not considered by the IACHR in the admissibility report, since it was filed after the date of its deliberation. In this regard, the IACHR has previously admitted the presentation of amicus curiae83. In this sense, the presentation of writings of non-governmental organizations and experts in the field of human rights has the purpose of observing different positions and opinions on an issue under study, which, vitally, enriches the analysis and decision making at the time of assessing the situation and the context in general. Also, the standing of friends of the court is an institution recognized in a large number of legal systems, especially when dealing with matters of public interest. 62. In accordance with the rules of procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the amicus curiae is a person outside the litigation, which is the situation in this case; however, this does not constitute a procedural disadvantage for the State. In addition, it should be noted that Article 65.1 of the Regulations empowers the Commission to receive testimony from witnesses or experts. Although the friends of the court are not properly witnesses or experts, the information of experts could also be requested by the Commission itself, so it would be unreasonable to reject the presentation of briefs in the capacity of amicus curiae. On the other hand, the State is also entitled to present this type of briefs if it considers it necessary. 2. Recusal of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression 63. The State recused the then Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, Catalina Botero, for the publication of several press releases in which she "expressed her position of condemnation against the Ecuadorian State." In this regard, the IACHR reiterates, as mentioned in the admissibility report of this case, that "a public statement by the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission that, after a rigorous examination of information, alerted the State about the concern of the Office on possible infractions of the right to freedom of expression, cannot be interpreted as affecting the impartiality of the IACHR, but as the exercise of its powers of promotion and protection." 64. The IACHR reiterates that "maintaining that the issuance of a press release [...] is a ground for inhibiting the members of the IACHR to hear an individual petition on certain facts, unreasonably restricts the essence of the IACHR's primary function and it voids the effectiveness of two of the most important mechanisms 81 Fact affirmed by the State in its brief of observations submitted to the Commission on December 13, 2016. Article 43.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR: The Commission shall deliberate on the merits of the case, to which end it shall prepare a report in which it will examine the arguments, the evidence presented by the parties, and the information obtained during hearings and on-site observations. In addition, the Commission may take into account other information that is a matter of public knowledge. 82 For example, see: IACHR. Report No. http://cidh.org/annualrep/2002eng/USA.11140.htm 83 75/02, Merits, 14 Mary Carrie Dann. United States. Available at: