20 emergency was declared on the grounds of the National Security Law and the Constitution52, for example in cases of “conflicting situations provoked with clear aims of vandalism by groups interested in causing chaos”53; in the most of these decree-laws, it was also stipulated that Art. 145 of the said Law would apply to punish infractions committed in the security zone established by such decree-laws, and some proceedings would effectively have been initiated pursuant to that law, according to the representatives. That is, the said Law would have continued to be in force until at least March 2006 and in any case, continued to have legal effect after the entry into force of the 1998 Ecuadorian Constitution. * * * 69. Finally, the State has admitted that at the time of issuing the Decree-Law No. 86 on September 3rd, 1992, the other States Parties have not been immediately informed, through the Secretary General of the Organization of American States (hereinafter “OAS”), of the Convention’s provisions of which it had suspended the application, of the reasons that gave rise to the suspension and of the date set for such suspension to end, as required by Article 27(3) of the Convention. In this regard, the Court views favorably the declaration made by Ecuador in its aknowledgement of responsibility, to the effect that: […] States in the region must be conscious [of the requirements of] Article 27(3) of the American Convention […,] a duty with which States often do not comply and with which the State of Ecuador has not complied in the instant case[, h]ence the acknowledgement made in good faith by the State […]. 70. The Court considers that the international obligation of States Parties to the American Convention under Article 27(3) constitutes a mechanism within the framework of the notion of collective guarantee underlying this treaty, which aim and purpose is the protection of human beings. Such obligation also constitutes a safeguard to prevent the abuse of the exceptional powers of the suspension of guarantees and allows other State Parties to evaluate if the scope of this suspension is consistent with the provisions of the Convention. Therefore, the non-compliance of this duty to inform implies a breach of the obligation set forth in Article 27(3). Even then, the State is not exempted from justifying the existence of an emergency situation and the adequacy of the measures therefore established, as set forth previously (supra paras. 47, 51, 52 and 54). * * * 71. Having regard to the foregoing considerations, the Court finds that the State has breached its obligations set forth in Article 27(1), 27(2) and 27(3) of the Convention, in relation with the rights and obligations set forth in Articles 1(1), 2, 4, 8.1 and 25 thereof. Cf. Decree-Law N° 1269 of March 21, 2006, Proclamation No. 1. Chief Officer of the Joint Operation Force No. 1. March 21, 2006; Decree-Law N° 1204 of March 7, 2006; Decree-Law of March 13, 2006 which reforms the Executive Decree-Law N° 1204 of March 7, 2006; Decree-Law N° 1179 of February 21, 2006; Decree-Law N° 426 of August 17, 2005 and Decree-Law N° 2752 of April 15, 2005 (annexes to the brief on pleadings and motions, annex 46, folios 917-930). 52 53 Cf. Decree-Law No. 426 of August 17, 2005 (annexes to the brief on pleadings and motions, annex 46, folio 927).