4 rights have been violated: the action for injunction (Article 88 of the Constitution of 2008 1), the action for non-compliance (Article 93 of the Constitution of 2008 2) and the extraordinary action for injunction (Article 94 of the Constitution of 2008 3). Based on the preceding, the State alleges that the petitioners had legal remedies still available to them before petitioning the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. 20. The State also alleges that Article 19, paragraph 17(i) of the Constitution in force at the time of the facts4 established the action for habeas corpus, which would have constituted the simple, quick and efficient remedy that should have been lodged with the Mayor of Quito and was not exhausted by the petitioners. In that regard, the State alleges that the mere complaint lodged by the petitioners was not sufficient to authorize that the disappeared individual be shown in person or to grant precautionary measures to safeguard his life. 21. With regard to the duplication of proceedings, the State alleges that the United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances has the authority to hear complaints, take action and protect individuals, and that, given that in the instant case the Working Group has already launched an investigation based on a complaint lodged against the Ecuadorian State, the Inter-American Commission cannot hear the case. 22. The State alleges that the petitioners intend to force the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights into becoming a court of fourth instance and to assume the jurisdictional 1 The State refers to Article 88 of the Constitution: “[t]he purpose of the action for injunction is to ensure the direct and effective protection of the rights enshrined in the Constitution and may be lodged any time a non-judicial government authority, by act or omission, violates constitutional rights; against public policies when those policies imply depriving the individual of the enjoyment or exercise of his constitutional rights; and when a private individual commits the rights violation, if the violation causes grave harm; if it provides government-regulated services; if the individual acts by delegation or concession; or if the person affected is in a status of subordination, defenselessness or discrimination.” Written communication No. 13484 from the Office of the Attorney General dated April 14, 2010, submitted via Note No. 4-2-123/2010, dated April 16, 2010. 2 The State makes reference to Article 93 of the Constitution: “[t]he purpose of the action for non-compliance is to guarantee the enforcement of the statutes that make up the system of laws and the implementation of rulings and reports by international human rights organizations when the statute or decision whose implementation is sought contains a clear, explicit and enforceable obligation to act or to refrain from acting. The petition will be lodged with the Constitutional Court.” Written communication No. 13484 from the Office of the Attorney General dated April 14, 2010, submitted via Note No. 4-2123/2010 dated April 16, 2010. 3 The State refers to Article 94 of the Constitution: “[t]he extraordinary action for injunction may be taken against final rulings or edicts that by action or omission violate rights recognized in the Constitution and will be lodged with the Constitutional Court. This recourse may be pursued when all ordinary and extraordinary remedies have been exhausted within the prescribed legal limit, unless failure to seek these remedies was not attributable to negligence on the part of the persons whose constitutional rights have been violated.” Written communications No. 13484 from the Office of the Attorney General dated April 14, 20010, submitted via Note No. 4-2-123/2010 dated April 16, 2010. 4 The State makes reference to Article 19, paragraph 17(i) of the Constitution: “[a]ny person who believes to be illegally deprived of his liberty may seek the protection of Habeas Corpus. This action may be lodged by the individual or his designated representative, no written authorization required, with the Mayor of Chair of the Council with jurisdiction over the matter or with those acting on their behalf. Municipal authorities will immediately order that the appellant be brought before them and that the arrest warrant be shown. Their orders shall be followed without comment or excuses by the authorities in charge of the detention facility or social rehabilitation center. Once informed of the particulars of the case, the Mayor or the Council Chair shall order the immediate release of the appellant if the detainee was not brought before the authority or if the arrest warrant was not produced, or if the warrant did not meet the legal requirements, if procedural errors were committed, or if, in the end, the basis of the complaint proved to be justified. Any official or employee who fails to comply with the order shall be relieved of his duties immediately and without further proceedings by the Mayor or the Council Chair, who will then notify the Office of the Comptroller General of the dismissal and also the authority responsible for naming a replacement. After releasing the detainee, the dismissed employee may lodge a complaint with competent judicial authorities within 8 days of having been notified of his dismissal.” Written communication No. 13484 from the Office of the Attorney General dated April14, 2010, submitted via Note No. 4-2-123/2010, dated April 16, 2010.