the actions necessary for the implementation of the ruling.” Subsequently, with the noncompliance action, the Constitutional Court, by way of the judgment of October 8, 2009, noted the measures to be taken in order to comply with the judgment issued in 2002 by the former Constitutional Tribunal. On October 18, 2010 “the judgment was partially complied with, since [Mr. Mejía] was reinstated into active service,” without fulfilling the order to assure his patrimonial rights and push forward the administrative and judicial actions for the right to repetition in favor of the State, “or taking the steps in line with that provided in the decision on clarification […] regarding promotion to a higher rank.” 87. On its behalf, the State argued that it has provided Mr. Mejía Idrovo with effective remedies in order to resolve his legal situation, to which it has not violated Article 25 of the American Convention. In particular, it noted that on the one hand, the declaration of unconstitutionality of the executive decrees […] does not imply a return to the situation that existed prior to the issuance of the provision that is contrary to the constitutional norm. The alleged victim should have used numeral 2 of Article 276 and, in said case, the arguments of Mr. Mejía Idrovo would be legally founded. Notwithstanding, the reasoning of numeral 2, noted by Mr. Mejía Idrovo in the motion for unconstitutionaliy, he sought a declaration of unconstitutionality of two decrees, that is, of legal norm; thus, in application of Article 278, the resolution of the Constitutional Tribunal does not have a retroactive application. Nevertheless, the main controversy with the alleged victim is the consideration that the effect of said ruling [included] a promotion to a higher rank. This is a legal impossibility, in accordance with the Constitution that was in force, pursuant to that noted by the State. 88. Moreover, Ecuador noted that the new constitutional framework provides for the noncompliance action, that which was used by the alleged victim and produced a favorable result. Currently, the highest constitutional tribunal of justice is implementing the legal measures of the case in order to comply with its mandate, as is clear from the ruling issued by that tribunal on May 11, 2010, by which the Constitutional Court “asks the Minister of Finance to, within a period of five days, allocate and credit the budget line in order to legalize the draft of the executive order to reinstate Col. GS José Alfredo Mejía Idrovo to active service in the Armed Forces, and to make effective the severance pay and payment of the benefits that correspond to the said Colonel, as determined by the judgment in this cause of action, and to report to this Court within the period allowed.” Likewise, in an effort to comply with the recommendations of the Commission, the State, through the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights, has carried out actions aimed at complying with the decisions of the national tribunals to provide reparation to the alleged victim. Considerations of the Court 89. In light of the facts from which allegations of the violation of Article 25 of the Convention originate (supra para. 48 to 58), the Court notes the following points of the controversy: a) the suitability and effectiveness of the motion for unconstitutionality; b) the scope of the obligation to provide reparation; c) resolution to the time of submission of the act. Cf. Judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of March 12, 2002 (supra note 42). 28