A.3. Rights of the family 140. The representatives alleged that the violation of the rights of the Casierra Quiñonez brothers and their next of kin is related to “the restriction on their full development” and the impact on the life plan “of the entire unit that constitutes the family,” derived from the action of the military agents and the subsequent denial of justice and reparations. They indicated that the foregoing made it impossible for those responsible for the events to be punished, which constituted “an obstruction to the full development of this family.” 141. The State indicated that “there is […] a misunderstanding on the part of the representatives […] as to the scope of Article 17 of the C[onvention], given that they [carried out] an analysis of the violation of judicial protection and jurisdictional guarantees, situation which corresponds to the argumentation of articles 8 and 25” of said international instrument. A.4. Right to equal protection 142. The representatives argued that discrimination due to the precarious economic condition of the Casierra Quiñonez family was one of the causes that led to the denial of justice they suffered. They pointed out that the alleged victims “were never called, much less heard” by the military justice system. They indicated that this “lack of procedural equality hurt […] the dignity” of the alleged victims, which is incompatible with the protection provided under Article 24 of the Convention. 143. The State alleged that “passing the case from ordinary to military jurisdiction” “did not respond to a 'distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference,' but to strict compliance with the law in force, without distinction based on the identity or conditions” of the alleged victims. It added that, since no unequal or discriminatory treatment was observed, no violation of the right to equality before the law can be inferred. B. Considerations of the Court 144. The Court will proceed to analyze the different arguments formulated in relation to the alleged violations of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, which also requires responding to the State's allegations related to the actions that would have been taken based on the report of the Truth Commission and the regulatory reforms approved in Ecuador in matters of military criminal jurisdiction. 145. In this sense, as to the allegations of the Inter-American Public Defenders referring to the violation of the right to protection of honor and dignity, the Court will not issue a ruling since the arguments put forward were based on facts that go beyond the factual framework of the case. In effect, everything related to the alleged "accusations" made against the presumed victims and the damage to their "public reputation" is alien to the content of the Commission's Merits Report, for which the Court is unable to make any analysis, safeguarding the procedural balance and the rights of the parties. 146. Turning to the allegation referring to the violation of the rights of the family, the Court points out that the arguments raised do not materially differ from the study carried out in relation to the violation of the rights to life and to humane treatment, as well as judicial guarantees and judicial protection, so it is not appropriate to issue a statement in this regard due to a lack of specific justification for the issue. In any case, upon deciding on the claims for reparations, the Court will examine the damages that the alleged victims could have suffered based on the facts related to those offenses. 147. Lastly, regarding the alleged violation of the right to equal protection, the Court 34