Forces. However, later the Constitutional Court clarified the meaning and scope of that ordered in the judgment of March 12, 2002. 98. Based on the foregoing, the Court deems that the unconstitutionality action although it may have been suitable to protect the affected legal interests, lacked effectiveness upon not repairing the situation and not allowing it to produce the result for which it was designed, 78 by not specifying the scope of the orders, in contravention of Article 25(1) of the Convention. 1) Regarding the scope of the unconstitutionality judgment in regard to the promotion to the rank of General. 99. The Court notes that Mr. Mejía Idrovo has insisted, by way of various briefs, that the judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal that declared the executive decrees unconstitutional, as well as the judgment of the Constitutional Court, intrinsically included that he be promoted to the higher rank of Brigadier General. In addition, Mr. Mejía Idrovo noted in the brief of final arguments that on March 22, 2011, the Council of General Officers resolved to qualify him as not fit for the promotion to rank of Brigadier General. Therefore, the Council “did not proceed as ordered in the decision of the Constitutional Court of March 2009 […], but simply reverted back to the beginning, as if José Idrovo had just been submitted to an evaluation process for promotion.” Subsequently, by means of supervening evidence, they reported that upon a request for appeal, on April 6, 2011, the same Council ratified the decision. 100. In this regard, the Court notes that established in the mentioned judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal and Constitutional Court, specifically that provided in the decision for clarification of the Constitutional Court of March 11, 2010, by which it ordered that the reinstatement must be to the conditions he was in at the time of the issuance of the decrees declared unconstitutional, that is, to the rank of Colonel (supra para. 58). 101. Likewise, the Tribunal notes that the decision for clarification of the Constitutional Court stated that: [T]he case under analysis, is one in which it is impossible to return to the previous state, in an absolute manner, because doing so would be tantamount to ignoring the situations that emerged in the legal world of the Armed Forces. [...] The Court insists that having met all requirements for the corresponding promotion of the plaintiff to the rank of Brigadier General, this should be done in accordance with the Law and Rules of Procedure that govern military activity. [...] The Court recognizes the patrimonial rights of the plaintiff; that is, the right to receive a pecuniary compensation according to the legal norms and regulations. 79 102. In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that in regard to the scope of the Judgment, those decisions are clear regarding the reinstatement of the plaintiff to the rank he held prior and not to his immediate ascent in rank. 78 Cf. Case of the Dos Erres Massacre V. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211 para. 121. 79 Request for clarification and amplification of the Constitutional Court on March 11, 2010, supra note 58, fs. 777 to 779. 31