120. In the present case, the Court notes that the Constitutional Tribunal, in its decision of March 12, 2002, (supra para. 50), noted that “if on the basis of [the Military Service Code] the promotion of other superior officers came to be, not having done the same with the plaintiff violates the right to equal protection of persons before the law […].” Following the judgments of the Constitutional Court on October 8, 2009 and March 11, 2010, Mr. Mejía Idrovo, on October 18, 2010, was reinstated to active duty as a colonel in the Army (supra paras. 57 and 58). 121. Moreover, it is worth mention that, despite the ruling of the Constitutional Tribunal, it does not have sufficient elements to establish, in light of the American Convention, if there was unequal protection of the domestic law. The representatives did not submit specific evidence in this case, such as the situation of the other officers who participated in the request for qualification, the names and technical criteria used, in each case, for their promotion, so as to allow the Court-acting within its jurisdiction-to conclude that Mr. Mejía Idrovo had been subject to discriminatory treatment. 96 122. In consideration of the foregoing, this Court deems that in the present case there are not sufficient evidentiary elements for the assessment of a violation to the right to equal protection in Article 24 of the American Convention. 97 123. On the other hand, the Court notes that both the representatives as well as Ecuador communicated that on February 25, 2011, the State informed Mr. Mejía Idrovo that the Ministry of Defense summoned the Council of General Officers of the Land Forces to a new process of qualification of the alleged victim. On March 22, 2011, said Council decided to qualify him as not apt to ascend to the rank of Brigadier General. This resolution was ratified by the Council of General Officers on April 6, 2011. 124. The Court highlights that the new process of qualification and promotion is not the subject of the litigation at hand. Therefore, the Court considers that the processing of the qualification cannot be considered as part of the controversy of the case in the proceedings before the Inter-American System and that it is not appropriate to render a decision regarding the recent decisions of the Council of General Officers. 125. Finally, it what regards the argument regarding the failure to apply the ruling of the Constitutional Tribunal of March 12, 2002, (supra para. 111), the Court ruled on this in the section regarding judicial protection in light of Article 25(2)(c) of the American Convention. VIII REPARATIONS (APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION) 96 Cf. Juridical Condition and Rights of Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18 of September 17, 2003. Series A No. 18, paras. 56 and 57. 97 Cf. Case of Apitz-Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 200. 38