Office of the Ombudsman,39 wherein it was requested, inter alia, that the Court deem the Executive Decrees to be unconstitutional and unlawful (Nos. 1185 and 1680), order his reinstatement in the permanent Armed Forces, and order his promotion to Brigadier General on December 21, 2000, with full honors, compensation, and statutory rights established in current legislation, in reparation for the damage caused by the constitutional, legal, and regulatory violations. In said petition, he argued that section (j) of Article 76 of the Military Service Code was used “arbitrarily.” Lastly, he argued that the processing violated guarantees enshrined in Articles 3(2), 6, 23(3), 23(26), 23(27), 24(12), and 24(13), 35, and 186 of the Political Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador; Articles 76, 91, 92, 101, 105, 106, 127, 128 of the Military Service Code of the Armed Forces, and Article 37 and Chapter X of the Rules of Procedure of the Council of General Officers of the Armed Forces. 40 49. On March 12, 2002, the Criminal Chamber of the Constitutional Tribunal admitted the petition and declared the following: 1. To declare fundamentally unconstitutionality Executive Decrees No. 1185 of January 15, 2001, and 1680 of July 18, 2001, published in the General Order No. 031 of January 31, 2002, and General Order No. 133 of July 20, 2001; 2. To order reparation for the harm caused to Col. (Ret.) José Alfredo Mejía Idrovo, [ret.];41 50. Moreover, the Constitutional Tribunal, among other things, noted that: [...]Both the Constitution and the Statutes of the Executive Branch require decisions to be clearly substantiated. The doctrine states that the decisions of state organs must express all the factual and legal underpinnings that combine to apply laws, determine their legitimacy, and justify the standards of appreciation as to merits and reasonableness. [...] In the case sub judice no such substantiation was provided, which signifies a violation of the aforesaid constitutional rule; […]Article 186(2) of the Constitution provides: “The tenure and profession of members of the security forces are guaranteed. They shall not be divested of their rank, honors and pension for any reason other than those provided by law.” This precept has not been observed in this case, since there are elements of subjectivity in the suspension and discharge of the applicant officer that exceed the legal framework; the exercise of discretion is limited by provisions set out in the system of laws, in this case by the Military Service Code, which determine the requirements and conditions for promotion to a higher rank. This Court finds that the provisions contained in the Service Code favored the promotion of Colonel GS José Mejía Idrovo. If, based on these rules, other superior officers were promoted, to not have proceeded in the same manner with the applicant violates the right to equality before the law [...]; […]One of the requests of the applicant is that this Court declare the challenged decrees unlawful; as is known, the action of unconstitutionality is not concerned with the possible unlawfulness of a legal norm. In this case, it is up to the contentiousadministrative courts to declare the challenged decrees unlawful. On the other hand, a 39 Cf. Official Letter 04121of the Ombudsman addressed to the Constitutional Court on October 4, 2001. (annexes to the application, annex 7, fs. 1252 y1254). In said official letter, there is to report on admissibility issued by the Ombudsman to file an application of unconstitutionality regarding Executive Decrees Nos. 1185 and 1680 filed by Mr. Mejía Idrovo. 40 Cf. Action of Unconstitutionality before the Constitutional Court (annexes to the brief of pleadings and motions, annex 17, f. 1646). 41 Cf. Judgment of May 30, 2002 of the Constitutional Court (annexes to the application, annex 13, f. 1332) 17