7 acts to contribute towards the guarantee that they will not be repeated.” This documentary has not been submitted to the Court. 26. That following the foregoing explanation, the Court declares that the State has fully complied with the first, second, and fourth obligations of operative paragraph ten of the Judgment, and that more information on advances with compliance of the third obligation of the aforementioned operative paragraph. * * * 27. That the order of the Court to adapt the internal legislation, in conformity with operative paragraph 11, entails two obligations by the State, namely: a) to adapt the internal legislation to the parameters of the Convention, so that it is a judicial authority who decides on the assets presented by those detained in conformity with the stipulations of Article 7(6) of the American Convention, and b) to modify the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and pertinent regulatory resolutions, so that charges will cease to be made for the deposit and handling of the assets seized in conformity with that Law from individuals who have not been convicted by final judgment. 28. That regarding the first obligation, the State informed that “on April 7, 2008, the Attorney General’s Office submitted to the National Constitutional Assembly, a brief in which it mentions constitutional and legal provisions which need to be harmonized with the American Convention, [including] that which regulates the constitutional guarantee of habeas corpus, with the goal to stop relying on the Mayor for consideration of the first instance of the writ, and have a constitutional judge resolve it.” 29. That the representatives expressed their “conformity with the constitutional reform implemented on the guarantee of habeas corpus, given that as of this date such action is being considered by judicial employees, which the representatives of the victims can attest, who have already filed writs of Habeas Corpus before the Chambers of the Superior Court of Justice of Guayaquil, with positive results.” 30. That although the State has not submitted to the Court the new Political Constitution, it is a notorious and public fact that Ecuador adopted a new Constitution, which this Court incorporated into the official case file, and which Article 89 orders: The writ of habeas corpus is intended to recover the freedom of someone who has been illegally, arbitrarily or illegitimately deprived of it, by orders of public authority or any person, as well as to protect life and the physical integrity of those deprived of freedom. Immediately after the writ is placed, the judge will call a hearing that should be held in the following twenty-four hours, in which the detention order should be presented with all of the formalities indicated by law, and justifications of fact and law that sustain this measure. The judge will order the appearance of the person deprived of liberty, the authority to whom the detained person is subject, the public defender, and the party who disposed or provoked it, depending on the case. If necessary, the hearing will be held in the place where the person was deprived of liberty. The judge will issue an order in the twenty four hours following the end of the hearing. If the deprivation was illegitimate or arbitrary, freedom will be decreed. The ruling that orders the release will be effective immediately. If any sort of torture, inhumane, cruel or degrading treatment is verified, the victim’s freedom will be decreed, as well as integral and specialized attention and the imposition of alternate measures to the deprivation of liberty when applicable. When the order of detention was ordered in a criminal proceeding, the writ will be filed before the Provincial Court of Justice. 31. That the amendment to the constitution is compatible with the American Convention and with what has been ordered by this Court in the Judgment delivered in the instant case,