the hierarchy, and that the relationship between superiors and subordinates be founded on mutual respect. Subordination and respect for discipline shall be observed even when not performing official duties, a precept that in this instance was neither observed nor fulfilled by National Police Constable Víctor Henry Mina Cuero, whose conduct is consistent with the provisions contained in Article 64 (5) and (26) of the institution's disciplinary regulations, in which the aggravating factors mentioned at Article 30 (c), (d), and (m) of the aforementioned law were also present.20 69. Resolution No. 2000-402-G-CG-B of the General Commandant National Police was published in General Order No. 216 on November 10, 2000, in which it was decided: To discharge from the police ranks, on October 25, 2000, National Police Constable VICTOR HENRY MINA CUERO, with citizenship card No. 080124510-1, by judgment of the Disciplinary Tribunal pursuant to Article 66 (j) of the National Police Personnel Law, who will cease to be a part of the “Loja No. 7” Provincial Police Command.21 4. The Application for Constitutional Relief (Amparo) 70. On December 15, 2000, the alleged victim filed an application for constitutional relief (amparo) with Esmeraldas Civil Court of Esmeraldas, claiming that the decision of the Disciplinary Tribunal of October 25, 2000, published in National Police General Order No. 214, violated several of his constitutional rights.22 The alleged victim argued that his right to a competent judge was infringed, given that the regular courts where the appropriate jurisdiction; that the offenses for which he was punished were never proved; and that he did not have a defense attorney present when he gave his statement to the Judicial Police. 71. The hearing on the application for constitutional relief was set for January 12, 2001.23 72. On February 28, 2001, Esmeraldas Third Civil Court denied the application for constitutional relief. The court found that the alleged victim's punishment was imposed in accordance with all constitutional standards and that no formalities whatever had been omitted. The court also found that under Article 81 of the Organic Law of the National Police and Article 334 of the National Police Criminal Code, dismissal or discharge was a penalty that the Disciplinary Tribunal had the power to impose as a competent organ to do so. The Court also considered that pursuant to Article 95(2) of the Constitution of Ecuador, judicial decisions adopted in the context of a proceeding, such as the one made by the Disciplinary Tribunal in the case under review, were not susceptible to constitutional relief (amparo).24 73. The alleged victim then proceeded to lodge an appeal with the Constitutional Court. On March 16, 2001, that court denied the action for constitutional relief on the grounds that the alleged victim had failed to appear at the hearing scheduled for it by Esmeraldas Third Civil Court and that, although he requested that it be rescheduled, he presented no justification for said rescheduling.25 5. Unconstitutionality Suit 74. On March 29, 2001, the alleged victim requested the Ombudsman for a favorable report in order to bring an unconstitutionality suit against the decision to discharge him from the police. That report was 20 2010. Annex XX. Resolution of the National Police Disciplinary Tribunal, October 25, 2000. Annex 4 to the State's brief of March 12, 21 Annex XX. General Order No. 216 of the General Command of the National Police, Friday, November 10, 2000. Appended to the original petition of February 28, 2002. 22 Annex XX. Application for constitutional relief (amparo) filed by Víctor Mina Cuero with Esmeraldas Civil Court on December 15, 2000. Annex 8 to the State's brief of March 12, 2010. 23 Annex XX. Letter from Esmeraldas Third Civil Court of January 9, 2001. Appended to the original petition of February 28, 2002. 24 Annex XX. Judgment of Esmeraldas Third Civil Court on application for constitutional relief No. 12834-2000 filed by Henry Mina Cuero. Appended to the original petition of February 28, 2002. 25 Annex XX. Resolution No. 303-RA-01-RA on the appeal, adopted by the Constitutional Court on March 16, 2001. Appended to the original petition of February 28, 2002.