117 processing of the petition of habeas corpus exceeded any permissible limit. Moreover, given the delay in deciding the petition and inasmuch as some of those on whose behalf it was filed were still being held at the Center when the writ was granted, the petition was ineffective for the very persons it was intended to protect, which constitutes a violation of Article 25(1) of the Convention. b) The failure to comply with the ruling on the petition of generic habeas corpus 248. Article 25(2)(c) of the Convention establishes the State’s obligation “to ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.” 249. In the instant case, it has been shown (supra para. 134.28) that in Final Ruling No. 652, delivered on July 31, 1998, the Civil and Commercial Law Judge of First Instance, Ninth Rotation, granted the petition of generic habeas corpus filed on behalf of the inmates at the Center. It read, in part, as follows: […] GRANT the petition of GENERIC HABEAS CORPUS filed […] on behalf of the juveniles identified at […[ this decision, and confined in the ‘Col. Panchito López’ Juvenile Reeducation Institute. […] the Director of that correctional facility, the ‘Col. Panchito López’ Juvenile Reeducation Institute, the Director of Penal Institutions, and the Ministry of Justice and Labor shall, in accordance with proper procedure, adopt forthwith effective and suitable administrative and budgetary measures to correct the unlawful conditions described [...] which adversely affect the juveniles also named in the preamble, who shall continue their confinement in proper facilities, in accordance with Article 21 of the National Constitution, under penalty of responsibility. […] that the authorities and institutions mentioned in the preceding paragraph shall inform this court of the measures taken to comply with the court ruling [...] within no more than thirty days and then periodically every three months, until the ruling has been fully executed, under penalty of law.197 250. Those operative paragraphs clearly provided that the pertinent authorities were to adopt “forthwith” all measures necessary to “correct the unlawful conditions” at the Center, on behalf of the inmates interned there at that time. In all likelihood by the time the writ was granted, the inmates at the Center were not the inmates there on the date the petition had been filed. However, subsequent to the ruling, the inmates protected by the writ continued to endure the same unsanitary and overcrowded conditions, without proper health care, ill-fed, under the constant threat of being punished, in an atmosphere of tension, violence, abuse, and unable to effectively enjoy a number of their human rights. So much so that subsequent to issuance of the writ of generic habeas corpus the three fires previously described broke out (supra paragraphs 134.29, 134.33 and 134.34). In other words, the writ of generic habeas corpus was so belated as to be in violation of the law. But that situation was compounded by the failure to comply with the writ, as a result of which the degrading and subhuman conditions under which the inmates at the detention facility lived did not change. The State itself acknowledged as much and stated that the inmates at the Center were not relocated because the State “did not have an adequate place.” 251. For all the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the State did not provide the inmates at the Center with a “simple and prompt recourse” when the petition of generic habeas corpus was granted, nor did it provide an effective remedy to the 239 197 Ruling of the Civil and Commercial Law Judge of First Instance, Ninth Rotation, S.D. No. 652 of July 31, 1998, which granted the petition of habeas corpus filed by the Tekojojá Foundation (file of appendixes to the application, appendix 20, folio 327).