declared that he was only following orders from his seniors and following institutional policies on fulfillment of his duties. 16. The petitioners also indicated that, based on these reports, the Ecumenical Commission for Human Rights sent several communications to the Minister of Defense and to the Minister of Government, requesting that exhaustive investigations be undertaken to shed light on the facts, but their requests were never answered. 17. The petitioners concluded that none of the complaints had the effect of triggering State investigations as the governments in power did not formally launch an investigation to clarify the events. 18. Finally, the petitioners replied to an argument of conflict of interest posed by the State. The State alleged that there was a conflict of interest, as the legal representative of CEDHU, the organization that lodged the complaint before the IACHR, was also a member of the Truth Commission. In that respect, the petitioners argued that she was designated by the State, knowing that she was the legal representative of CEDHU; the organization that lodged the complaint in 1994, and because of that, the principle of estoppel should be applied. 19. A description of the facts and the investigation related to the forced disappearance of César Gustavo Garzón Guzmán, based on the information submitted by both parties, will be included in the analysis of facts of the Commission. This section summarizes the main legal arguments offered by the petitioners. 20. The petitioners alleged that the State breached the Right to Juridical Personality, as the forced disappearance leaves the person in a situation of legal uncertainty making it impossible to exercise his or her rights effectively and leaving the person out of the realm of legal protection. 21. The petitioners claimed that the State breached the Right to Life since it can be presumed that the alleged victim was murdered after the forced disappearance. 22. They sustained that the State breached the Right to Humane Treatment based on the forced disappearance of the alleged victim that also entailed a generalized state of anguish, insecurity and fear, not only of the victim but also of his family and friends. 23. The petitioners argued that the State breached the Right to Personal Liberty, as they alleged the victim was deprived of his liberty in contravention of legal requirements. 24. The petitioners claimed the breach of Rights to a Fair Trial and Judicial Protection for the lack of investigation within a reasonable time and because a judicial investigation was never launched, even though more than 25 years have elapsed. 25. They also sustained that the State did not provide the victims’ next of kin with an adequate and effective recourse to resolve the situation. They rejected the State’s argument according to which the petitioners should have lodged the action for habeas corpus. Alleging that both the Commission and the Court have established that this recourse was not in compliance with the Convention. This because it established that anyone who believes to be illegally detained may in person or represented by someone, lodge the action before the Mayor in whose jurisdiction the person was. This presupposes knowledge of where the person is detained, which is impossible in the case of a forced disappearance. 26. The petitioners pointed out that the possibility to exercise a habeas corpus to search for a person who had disappeared was an action established in the Constitution passed in 2008. Finally, they stated that Ecuador has not yet typified the crime of forced disappearance of persons. 3