69. Upon examination of the arguments of the parties and of the evidence provided, this Court notes the following: a) that legal notice of the decision of the Constitutional Tribunal of March 12, 2002, was provided to the alleged victim, to the President of the Republic, and to the Prosecutor General of the Republic on March 25, 2002,66 and that it was published in the Official Register No. 548 on April 4, 2002, (supra note 51) which as of its promulgation is executable67; b) that the Army Command on April 8, 2002, founded in Article 67 of the Rules of Processing of Case Files submitted a clarification to the President of the Constitutional Tribunal (supra note 52); c) that Mr. Mejía Idrovo became aware, unofficially, that a motion for clarification had been filed by the Constitutional Tribunal of March 12, 2002 (supra note 52); d) that the President of the Constitutional Tribunal accepted the request for clarification and issued a statement on May 30, 2002 (supra note 53); e) that according the alleged victim “he became aware of the decision of the President of the Constitutional Tribunal, without stating when, by way of a brief offered upon insistence regarding the execution of the ruling.” (supra note 53). Subsequently, the alleged victim addressed several briefs to the President and the Plenary of the Tribunal to complain of the situation that ensued due to said decision (supra note 54), and f) on May 20, 2003, the Plenary of the Constitutional Tribunal decided to revoke any orders subsequent to the resolution of the Plenary of the Constitutional Tribunal of March 12, 2002, where legal notice was provided on the 25th of said month and year. (supra note 54). 70. The Court notes that the State did not present any arguments nor did it raise any objections argued by the Commission and representatives, and neither did it provide evidence in this regard, but rather it limited itself to noting that the President of the Constitutional Tribunal has “jurisdiction to execute the resolutions rendered by the plenary of the judiciary” (supra note 67). 71. The Court notes that in the period in which the facts occurred, the proceedings before the Constitutional Tribunal were governed by, inter alia, the following provisions then in force: Article 6768 of the Rules of Procedure on the Processing of Case Files of the Constitutional Tribunal, and Articles 28569 and 28670 of the Code of Civil Procedure of Ecuador. Moreover, the Constitution that was in force until 2008, in Article 276(7), established that the Constitutional Tribunal could “exercise the powers conferred by the Constitution and laws.” In application of this norm, the Code of Civil Procedure in its Article 285 establishes the possibility of making clarifications or amplifications of a judgment. 66 Cf. Oficial Letter of Guide of the Constitutional Tribunal postboxes, supra note 43. 67 Art. 278 of the Political Constitution of Ecuador, supra note 45. 68 Art. 67 states that: “Execution of the plenary resolutions.-the resolutions orderd by the Plenary shall be Executed by the President of the Tribunal. 69 Art. 285: “The judge that issued the Judgment cannot repeal nor alter its sense in any case. However, he/she can clarify or amplify its content if one of the parties asks him/her to do so within a three day deadline.” 70 Art. 286: The clarification will take place if the Judgment was obscure. The amplification will take place when one of the controversial issues had not been solved, or if the Judgment had not referred to the interests or costs. The remaining party must be heard.” 24