been materially impossible to do so because a prerequisite was naming the place in which the person concerned had been detained. 21. They also informed the IACHR that Ecuador's Truth Commission, established in 2007, had included Mr. Jorge Vásquez Durand 's case in its Final Report entitled “Sin Verdad no hay Justicia” [Without the Truth There is No Justice], under the heading "Forced Disappearance of Peruvian Citizen." They likewise reported that, as a result of the Truth Commission's Final Report, the Office of the Attorney General (Fiscalía General del Estado) had established a Special Unit to investigate the cases referred to in that Commission's Report.4 B. The State 22. Ecuador denied having detained Mr. Jorge Vásquez Durand and any State liability for his disappearance. Specifically, it reported that its police and military authorities had no record of his detention and that exhaustive inquiries had been made to ascertain his whereabouts, but they had not been able to obtain information about his presence in Ecuador. 23. In response to the request for precautionary measures filed on June 1, 1995, the Ecuadorian State indicated that there was no record of his detention, only of his departure from the country on January 30, 1995, "without any further migratory movements. Moreover, it has been verified that there is no record of the aforementioned foreign national ever having been detained." The State further reported that its Government had publicly committed to full cooperation "to bring about new investigations aimed at clarifying the situation of Peruvian citizens whose whereabouts the Government of Peru claims to be unaware of, on the understanding that Peru likewise investigates to see whether said citizens are in its own territory."5 24. As regards requirements for admissibility of the petition, the State adduced failure to exhaust domestic remedies and argued that the petitioners should have brought the habeas corpus action provided for in the Political Constitution at that time as a measure to challenge improper detentions and achieve the release of the victims. In 2014, the State argued that, in addition to habeas corpus, a “protection of liberty" action (amparo de libertad) had yet to be brought, which was an action "that any accused could file if he or she considered that his/her arrest violated the precepts contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure."6 25. In addition, the State argued that the petition did not state facts tending to establish a violation of the rights guaranteed by the American Convention. The reason for this was that it transpired from the reports prepared by police and military intelligence that no right guaranteed in the Convention or in any other human rights treaty ratified by Ecuador had been violated to the detriment of Peruvian citizen Jorge Vásquez Durand, since he had not been detained by any Ecuadorian authority. Consequently, no international liability could be assigned to Ecuador for a fact under such circumstances, as that would be to distort the inter-American system for the protection of human rights, which comes into play when there is a violation that can be attributed to a particular State Party."7 26. With respect to assessment of the evidence, the State of Ecuador argued that in the instant case there is no circumstantial evidence, prima facie presumption, or material or documentary evidence conducive to a firm conclusion that Jorge Vásquez was either detained or disappeared, with the support or 4 See below: V. Establishment of the Facts 5 Note of the State of Ecuador of July 6, 1995. 6 Note of the State of Ecuador of August 25, 2014. 7 Note of the State of Ecuador of October 29, 2003. 4