5 months, this body began to hear the appeal on April 11, 2006, and issued a favorable ruling on July 6, 2006. The petitioners state that, although the Constitutional Tribunal established that in cases of forced disappearance the investigations and actions could not be closed until a case was resolved, to date the Commission has received no indication of progress in the investigation. 31. The Commission observes that the Constitutional Tribunal, in its decision of July 6, 2006, found that habeas corpus was the only action at the level of constitutional law that could be pursued for emergency protection of the right to life, liberty, and humane treatment. Therefore, it is appropriate in cases of disappeared persons when there are indications that the State could be responsible 2. The Constitutional Tribunal also stated that it was unacceptable that a person should remain disappeared for over two years without coordinated and effective action by the competent authorities to learn his whereabouts. The Tribunal therefore found it unconstitutional for the Mayor’s Office to deny the writ of habeas corpus, it being the State’s obligation to determine clearly and precisely what happened to the disappeared person 3. 32. The Commission finds in this case that the petitioners availed themselves of the legal means available under domestic law: the constitutional habeas corpus motion and the crime report. Both actions, nevertheless, were set aside. The Commission notes that, even though the Constitutional Tribunal found it unconstitutional that the constitutional habeas corpus motion submitted to the Mayor’s Office of Quito had been set aside, according to information provided to the Commission, no other measures were taken after that decision. Consequently, the petitioners did not have access to a suitable remedy, for the reasons set forth in Article 46.2, sections (a) and (b), of the American Convention. 33. The State argues that the petitioners should have exhausted other judicial actions, such as a civil suit for damages, an action for presumption of death, and the constitutional action for noncompliance. The latter, established by the present Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador, would, in the State’s view, be effective in securing execution of the ruling issued by the Constitutional Tribunal in the matter of habeas corpus. 34. In that regard, the petitioners argue that the action for presumption of death is not effective in this case. That action requires that at least two years have elapsed since the most recent news of the disappeared person; its purpose is to safeguard successor rights; and in that action the family members must persuade the judge that it is impossible to locate the disappeared person and, thus, that the person should be declared dead. As for the supposed effectiveness of the action for damages, the petitioners argue that the State has not indicated how that proceeding would be suitable and effective in locating a disappeared person; and that the action would be intended solely to address certain consequences of the violations reported, not to correct the violations. 35. As for the alleged need to exhaust the constitutional action for noncompliance, the petitioners argue that this action was not available on the date of issue of the habeas corpus decision, since the Constitution had not yet entered into force. The petitioners, therefore, could not have pursued it. Moreover, the constitutional measures set forth in the 1988 Constitution (in force at the time of the reported events) and its enacting legislation established a regime of immediate execution of decisions on constitutional actions. 36. As for the other remedies which the State argued were effective--the civil suit for damages, the action for presumption of death, and the constitutional action for noncompliance--the Commission finds them ineffective in correcting the situation reported. The former two, of a civil nature, as the petitioners have stated, clearly are not designed to determine the fate of a person deemed to have disappeared; they 2 Initial petition received March 13, 2007. Annex 10: Decision No. 0076-2005-HC, issued by the Third Chamber of the Constitutional Tribunal on July 6, 2006. 3 Initial petition received March 13, 2007. Annex 10: Decision No. 0076-2005-HC, issued by the Third Chamber of the Constitutional Tribunal on July 6, 2006.