public functions in certain posts as specified by law and, where appropriate, for making such registrations public.” B. Position of the State 20. The State requested that the petition be declared inadmissible, on the argument that it does not meet the requirements set forth in Articles 46.1(a) and 47 (a) and (b) of the American Convention. The State maintains that the alleged victim availed himself of the Inter-American Commission on January 3, 2002 without having sought or exhausted the appropriate remedies under domestic law and without demonstrating the reasons for which the IACHR should find that the remedies available at that time in Ecuador were ineffective to resolve his legal status. The State asserted that the petitioner had effective domestic remedies available to him which he should have exhausted prior to filing his initial petition —specifically, a petition for a constitutional remedy, writ of habeas corpus, and request for the judicial review of administrative acts. 21. The State later asserted that, after filing the initial petition, Mr. Viteri filed a petition for a constitutional remedy that resulted in a Constitutional Court judgment partially in his favor. The State maintained that, in granting partial amparo relief with respect to the strict arrests, the Constitutional Court’s decision repeatedly noted that Mr. Viteri’s due process rights had been violated. The State thus alleged that “Mr. Viteri neither asserts nor demonstrates that there was any type of harm during the constitutional case directly or indirectly attributable to the State. On the contrary, the Ecuadorian State maintains that the alleged victim, through the petition for a constitutional remedy, accessed independent, impartial courts previously established by law; he was assisted by a defense attorney of his own choosing, he was given the time and means to prepare his claim, and he was able to exercise his right to appeal the decision of the lower court judge to the Constitutional Court as provided by law.” 22. In view of the above, the State maintained that the subject of the international claim is limited to compliance with the judgment of the Constitutional Court, in particular, the awarding of compensation. It argued that the alleged victim has not exhausted the domestic remedies available in Ecuador to satisfy that right. It asserted that the administrative proceeding brought before the Executive Branch by the alleged victim for such purposes on February 8, 2003 was not a suitable remedy. In the State’s opinion, the appropriate remedy would be to file a civil action for non-pecuniary damages before the Court for the Judicial Review of Administrative Action, in accordance with Article 212 of the Statute of the Administrative Legal System of the Executive Function. It argued that there was no evidence that Mr. Viteri Ungaretti had attempted to obtain compensation for non-pecuniary damages based on the judgment of the Constitutional Court. 23. The State further indicated that the Constitution of Ecuador, in force since 2008, includes a guarantee for the enforcement of judgments called “noncompliance action,” contained in Articles 93 of the Constitution3 and 52-57 de la Organic Law of Judicial Guarantees and Constitutional Control. It explained that this action is an appropriate remedy, “which provides citizens with additional mechanisms for the protection of their fundamental rights that Mr. Viteri could and should exhaust as a prerequisite for accessing the InterAmerican Human Rights System.” According to the State, the fact that this remedy was not available at the time the petition was filed in no way prevents Mr. Viteri or his representatives from exhausting it now, in order to obtaining the just satisfaction of his claims without needing to go before international authorities. 24. The State alleged that “the effectiveness of the noncompliance remedy for the case in question lies in the fact that it falls within a framework of constitutional rights created to comprehensively guarantee the rights of the individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the State. In this regard, it is important to underscore that the aim of the remedies created by the Constitution of Montecristi is not just an enunciative acknowledgement of the potential infringement of rights or the mere imposition of precautionary measures; rather, they establish the principle of restitutium in integrum, the judge being authorized to examine the 3 Article 93 of the Constitution of Ecuador provides that: “The purpose of the noncompliance action is to ensure the application of the rules that make up the legal system, as well as compliance with the judgments or reports of international human rights bodies, when the rule or decision in question involves a clear, express, and enforceable obligation to do or not do something. The action will be brought before the Constitutional Court.” Available at: http://www.asambleanacional.gov.ec/documentos/constitucion_de_bolsillo.pdf