compliance with the judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal, and d) implementation of the Judgment of noncompliance by the Constitutional Court. the 90. Because of this, the Court will examine in the following sections if: a) the unconstitutionality action provided judicial protection in accordance with Article 25(1) of the American Convention, as this is an effective remedy, and b) effective judicial protection was provided by the authorities for the execution of the domestic rulings in accordance with Article 25(2)(c) of the Convention. a) Effectiveness of the unconstitutionality action (Article 25(1) of the American Convention) 91. Article 25(1) of the Convention guarantees the existence of a simple, quick, and effective remedy before a judge or competent Tribunal. The Court recalls its constant jurisprudence in that said remedy must be appropriate and effective.74 92. In regard to the unconstitutionality action, the Court notes that the Constitution of Ecuador, at the time of the facts, provided in Article 276 that it is incumbent on the Constitutional Tribunal to: 1. Hear and resolve the claims of unconstitutionality of the merits or substance that are present regarding organic and ordinary laws, decrees-law, ordinances, statutes, rules or procedure, and resolutions issued by the organs of State institutions, and to suspend, in part or in full, its effects. 2. Hear and rule on the unconstitutionality of administrative acts of any public authority. The declaration of unconstitutionality entails the revocation of the act, without detriment to the administrative body adopting the necessary measures to preserve the respect for constitutional norms. […] 93. Regarding the suitability of the unconstitutionality action, the Court finds that there is no controversy between the parties regarding whether said action was appropriate to protect the rights that the alleged victim argued before the Constitutional Tribunal. However, the State has expressed that Mr. Mejía Idrovo should have argued that provided in numeral 2 of Article 276 of the Constitution in force and not numeral 1, as the latter could only suspend these effects and not make them retroactive (supra para. 87). Moreover, the State expressed that Mr. Mejía Idrovo should have exhausted a civil action for damages against the State. In this regard, the Court depends on the decision and scope of the Judgment delivered by the Constitutional Court on October 8, 2009, wherein it interpreted the Judgment of March 12, 2002, of the Constitutional Tribunal and referred to the scope of the reparation and affirmed that it included the reinstatement of Mr. Mejía Idrovo, without regarding this as a retroactive effect, as well as the recognition of his patrimonial rights and the right of repetition (supra para. 56). In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that the unconstitutionality action was the appropriate remedy, that is, the most suitable for safeguarding the violated legal situation in this case. 74 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Hondura. Merits, supra note 6, para. 63; Case of Vélez Loor V. Panamá, supra note 14, para. 19, and Case of Vera Vera et al. V. Ecuador, supra note 12, para. 13. 29