8 is not adequate in a specific case, it obviously need not be exhausted. A norm is meant to have an effect and should not be interpreted in such a way as to negate its effect or lead to a result that is manifestly absurd or unreasonable. 16 32. In relation to this claim, it appears from the parties’ arguments that after the resolution of January 17, 2001 of the Court of Law of the Fourth Military Zone, which was accepted by the Council of Subaltern Officers of the Armed Force on May 7, 2001, a request for reconsideration of that resolution was submitted, which was denied on June 5, 200117, and a motion of appeal was filed that was dismissed by the Council of Superior Officers of the Armed Force on June 18, 2001.18 In addition, an amparo action was filed with the Sixth Court for Civil Matters of Pichincha that was rejected as unfounded on July 18, 2001, in the face of which a motion of appeal was filed. On February 4, 2002, the Constitutional Court ruled “to dismiss the constitutional amparo action as unfounded.”19 33. In view of the foregoing, the Commission observes that with respect to the processing of the summary information, the alleged victim filed the remedy available, i.e. the motion of appeal, which was rejected on June 18, 2001. The Commission observes that the decision mentioned became final, and no other remedy would be available against it in the administrative jurisdiction. 34. As for the amparo action, the Commission observes that on July 18, 2001 the Sixth Judge for Civil Matters of Pichincha ruled to deny the amparo action. That resolution was appealed and on February 4, 2002, the Second Chamber of the Constitutional Court ruled to dismiss the amparo action as unfounded on not finding a constitutional violation that has been proven by the alleged victim, and for not having met the requirements indicated in the Law on Constitutional Control. 35. As regards the constitutional motion, Article 277 of the Constitution of Ecuador, in force at the time of the facts, established precisely those persons who had active standing to file that action and the requirements for filing it.20 The Commission reiterates that the regulation of the remedy impeded its direct use by the alleged victim, since they first had to obtain the signatures of 1,000 citizens or obtain a favorable opinion from the Human Rights Ombudsman. In relation to those limitations, the State has not presented information on the efficacy, in practice, of the constitutional motion in cases of individual claims; accordingly it has not shown its efficacy for resolving the present matter in the domestic jurisdiction.21 36. The contentious-administrative jurisdiction would not have been exhausted by the petitioners insofar as they allege that the violations of human rights to the detriment of the alleged victim originated in the resolution of the Court of Law of the Fourth Military Zone 16 I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras Case. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 63. Resolution of the Council of Subaltern Officers of the Armed Force, reference 2001-10-COSB, June 5, 2001. Attachment to the original petition received at the IACHR on August 30, 2002. 18 Resolution of the Council of Superior Officers of the Armed Force, reference 210090-COSFT, June 18, 2001. Attachment to the petitioners’ brief received at the IACHR on April 12, 2004. 19 Judgment of the Constitutional Court, Case No. 739-2001-RA, February 4, 2002. Attachment to the original petition received at the IACHR on August 30, 2002. 20 Article 277 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador of 2008: “Las Actions alleging unconstitutionality may be filed by: 1. The President of the Republic, in those cases provided for in Article 276(1). 2. The National Congress, after a resolution by the majority of its members, in those cases provided for in Article 276(1) and (2). 3. The Supreme Court of Justice, after a resolution by the Court sitting in plenary, in those cases described in Article 276(1) and (2). 4. The provincial councils or municipal councils, in those cases indicated in Article 276(2). 5. One thousand citizens in the enjoyment of their political rights, or any person after a favorable report by the Human Rights Ombudsman on its admissibility, in the cases of Article 276(1) and (2). The President of the Republic shall ask for the opinion established in Article 276(4) and (5)….” 21 IACHR, Report No. 09/05 (Admissibility), Petition 1-03, Elías Gattass Sahih, Ecuador, February 23, 2005, para. 32. IACHR, Report No. 5/07 (Admissibility), Petition 161-05, Miguel Camba Campos et al. (Justices on the Constitutional Court), Ecuador, February 27, 2007, para. 23. 17