I INTRODUCTION TO THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE CONTROVERSY 1. On November 19, 2009, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or the “Inter-American Commission”) presented, pursuant to Articles 51 and 61 of the Convention, an application against the Republic of Ecuador (hereinafter “the State” or “Ecuador”) in regard to the case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador. The initial petition was presented before the Commission on October 24, 2002 by the Ecumenical Commission on Human Rights, (hereinafter “CEDHU”). On March 17, 2009, the Commission adopted the Admissibility and Merits Report No. 07/09,1 wherein it declared the admissibility of the case and recommended the State to adopt the necessary measures to assure effective compliance of the action of unconstitutionality issued on March 12, 2002, by the Constitutional Tribunal of Ecuador2 and to repair the harm caused to José Alfredo Mejía Idrovo (hereinafter “Colonel Mejía Idrovo,” “Mr. Mejía Idrovo” or “alleged victim”). Given that in the opinion of the Commission the recommendations were not adopted by the State in a satisfactory manner, it decided to submit the present case to the Court’s jurisdiction. The Commission appointed as Delegates, Mrs. Luz Patricia Mejía, Commissioner, and Mr. Santiago A. Canton, Executive Secretary, and as legal advisors, Mrs. Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Deputy Executive Secretary, and Karla I. Quintana Osuna, specialist with the Executive Secretary. 2. The facts alleged by the Commission alluded to the State’s failure to comply with the ruling issued by the Constitutional Tribunal that declared the unconstitutionality of the Executive Decrees, which ordered that Mr. Mejía Idrovo could be suspended and discharged from the army and provided the reparation for the harm. 3. The Commission requested that the Court establish the international responsibility of the State because it has not complied with its international obligations upon violating Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Mejía Idrovo, given that more than seven years had passed since the Constitutional Tribunal issued a judgment on March 12, 2002, ordering the State to repair the damage caused to the alleged victim, without the State complying with said order. 4. On March 13, 2010, Sister Elsie Monge and Mr. César Duque, members of the Ecumenical Commission on Human Rights, in representation of the alleged victim (hereinafter “the representatives”), presented their brief of pleadings, motions, and evidence (hereinafter “the brief of pleadings and motions”) before the Court. In this brief, they alluded to the facts noted in the Commission’s application, expanding on the information therein. In general, they agreed with the legal arguments of the 1 The Commission concluded that it has jurisdiction to analyze the claim presented by the petitioners regarding the alleged violations of Article 8(1) and 25(2)(c) of the American Convention, in relation to the generic obligations of Article 1(1) of said treaty, pursuant to the requirements established in Articles 46 and 47 of the Convention. Moreover, the Commission declared the extremes that regard Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention as inadmissible, in relation to Article 1(1) of said instrument, to the detriment of Mr. Mejía Idrovo. 2 Note for clarification: In October 2008, via referendum, to the new Political Constitution came into force in Ecuador. As of this moment, the Constitutional Court of Ecuador was called the “Constitutional Court of Ecuador.” Taking this into account, this body will be referred to as the “Constitutional Court” for all resolutions issued after said date. 3