116. The Commission did not argue a violation of Article 2494 of the American Convention. The representatives argued a violation of Article 24 for the failure to promote Mr. Mejía Idrovo, while others were promoted who were in allegedly similar circumstances. In this regard, they expressed that the decision of the Council of General Officers results in an “evident unequal treatment of the victim by [said] Council […] upon favoring other candidates for promotion to brigadier general” and not promoting Mr. Mejía Idrovo. They added that “the discretion is limited by the Military Service Code of the Armed Forces” and “if [based] on said regulations other superior officers were promoted, not having done the same for the plaintiff, violations his right to equal protection before the law enshrined in the Constitution.” Moreover, they argued that the application of the ruling of the Constitutional Tribunal was discriminatory, given that in other cases a similar ruling has been implemented. Specifically, the stated that the lack of implementation of the ruling was a result of discrimination, since applying non-retroactivity implies “differential treatment.” It is worth mention that subsequently, the representatives did not address the alleged violation of Article 24 of the Convention. 117. The State argued that there is no violation of Article 24 of the Convention, and in its answer to the application it noted that, pursuant to Advisory Opinion 4/84, “it follows that not all differences in legal treatment are discriminatory […]There may well exist certain factual inequalities that might legitimately give rise to inequalities in legal treatment that do not violate principles of justice […].” 118. In regard to the process of requalification of the promotion of Mr. Mejía Idrovo, the representatives noted that the State reported, by means of a note of February 25, 2011, that the Ministry of Defense summoned the Council of General Officers to initiate a process of qualification. They added that on March 23, 2011, Mr. Mejía Idrovo received Official letter N.-2011-0046-SCOGFT of March 22, 2011, signed by the President of the Council of General Officers, wherein he was informed that said Council resolved to qualify him as not apt to ascend to the rank of Brigadier General, applying that provided by Article 76(f) of the Military Service Code. In this regard, the representatives affirmed that the Council of General Officers “did not proceed as ordered in the judgment [of noncompliance], but rather reverted back to the beginning, as if Mr. Mejía Idrovo had just been submitted before a process of qualification for his ascent” (supra para. 99). As such, on March 25, 2011, Mr. Mejía Idrovo presented an action to challenge the decision of the Council. 119. On its behalf, the State informed of the initiation of the process of requalification of the promotion of the alleged victim, and forwarded the decisions issued by the Council of General Officers, official letters N.-2011-0046-SCOGFT of March 22 and N.-2011-0062-SCOGFT of April 6, 2011. 95 Considerations of the Court 94 Report on Admissibility and Merits No. 7/9, the Commission considered that it had not been duly informed by the petitioners in case in particular, and therefore did not accept that point of the request. 95 On June 20, 2011, the State submitted the Official letter No. 2011-0087- SCOGFT, of May 19, 2011, signed by General Patricio Cardenas Proaño, Commanding General of the Land Forces, in relation to the process of qualification of Colonel Mejia Idrovo. In this respect, the Secretariat forwarded the letter to the Representatives and the Commission in order for them to submit their observations. On June 28, 2011, the Representatives submitted their comments and the Commission stated that it had no comments in this regard, supra para. 13. 37