5 as an offense in the Military Criminal Code. It argues that pursuant to Article 86 of the Law on Personnel of the Armed Forces, in both procedures the discharge constitutes an “administrative act ordered by the competent authority, which orders the separation of the member of the military from the Standing Armed Forces, placing him in passive service.” 19. The State argues that pursuant to Article 201 of the Law on Personnel of the Armed Forces7 the alleged victim could have filed a claim related to the illegality of the resolution ordering the discharge with the corresponding Council of Officers. It also argues that pursuant to Articles 1 and 3 of the Law on Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction8 the administrative act of discharge could have been challenged, through that jurisdiction, before the competent District Courts (Tribunales Distritales). It argues that in the context of the contentious-administrative proceeding the motion of cassation (recurso de casación) would also be available and would be adequate9 to challenge the judgment issued by the District Court in case of any errors in iudicando or in procedendo. In conclusion, the State argues that it has proven the existence of domestic remedies effective for resolving the alleged victim’s legal situation. 20. The State indicates that the victim alleged violations of judicial guarantees in the process of the constitutional amparo proceeding, in particular that his right to be tried in a reasonable time was not respected. In response, the State argues that the principle of reasonable time “has as its purpose to keep the accused from remaining under accusation a long time and to ensure that it is decided promptly.”10 It alleges that in keeping with what has been held by the European Court of Human Rights, the reasonableness of a measure or of a time period should be analyzed in its own and specific context. Specifically, it considers that the duration of the domestic proceedings was within the limits of reasonableness established by the Court and the Commission, that it did not constitute a “denial of justice,” and that therefore the State did not violate Article 8(1) of the Convention. 21. The State argues that the alleged victim had free access to the judicial apparatus and to all remedies available in the face of the alleged violations of the Convention; indeed, the Second Court for Civil Matters of Pichincha and the Constitutional Court resolved the amparo action as per the law and abiding by the rules of due process. 22. As for the alleged discriminatory nature of the military laws applied to Homero Flor in the disciplinary proceeding that led to his discharge from the Armed Forces, the State alleges that if it is considered that the provisions were discriminatory and therefore The State quotes Article 201 of the Law on Personnel of the Armed Forces: “A member of the military who is suspended or discharged and who considers said Resolution illegal, may present his claim to the respective Council within 45 calendar days after publication in the General Order of the respective Decree or Resolution. The councils shall resolve the claims submitted within a maximum of 30 days.” Official note 02848 from the Office of the Solicitor General of the State of August 11, 2003, forwarded by Note No. 4-2-144/03 of August 25, 2003. 8 The State cites Articles 1 and 3 of the Law on the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction. Article1: “The contentious-administrative remedy may be filed by physical or juridical persons against the regulations, acts, and resolutions of the Public Administration or of semi-public juridical persons that are definitive, and violate a right or direct interest of the plaintiff.” Article 3: “The contentiousadministrative remedy is of two kinds: of full jurisdiction or subjective, and of annulment or objective. The remedy of full jurisdiction, or subjective remedy, protects an individual right of the moving party, presumably denied, repudiated, or not recognized totally or partially by the administrative act in question. The remedy of annulment, or objective remedy, or remedy for abuse of power, protects compliance with the objective legal norm, administrative in nature, and may be brought by one who has a direct interest in bringing the action, requesting of the court that it annul the act challenged due to a legal defect.” Official note 02848 from the Office of the Solicitor General of the State of August 11, 2003, forwarded by Note No. 4-2-144/03 of August 25, 2003. 9 The State cites the I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras Case. Series C No. 4. Judgment of July 29, 1988, para. 64. Official note 02848 from the Office of the Solicitor General of the State of August 11, 2003, forwarded by Note No. 4-2-144/03 of August 25, 2003. 10 The State cites the I/A Court H.R., Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador Case. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 70. Official note 02848 from the Office of the Solicitor General of the State of August 11, 2003, forwarded by Note No. 4-2-144/03 of August 25, 2003. 7