"hearing proceeding" to take place on January 12, of the same year at 9:00 a.m.47 Thus, on the newly appointed date of January 12, 2001, the hearing took place, with the alleged victim in attendance, accompanied by his lawyers, and the representative of the National Police's Disciplinary Tribunal.48 52. The Third Civil Court of Esmeraldas, by Resolution of January 18, 2001, declared the constitutional remedy of habeas corpus "inadmissible,” for which, among other matters, it considered: [I]n accordance with the provisions of the second paragraph of [A]rt[icle] 95 of the Constitution [...] which states: "Judicial decisions adopted in a proceeding shall not be subject to a remedy of amparo," and from the evidence or proceedings in the file, it is absolutely clear that the disciplinary sanction imposed on the appellant and which is the subject of the appeal has been imposed as the culmination of the process carried out in the Court of [D]iscipline. [...] [I]n the present writ of [c]onstitutional [a]mparo, the Disciplinary Tribunal is sued [,] but their names are not specified.49 53. Mr. Mina Cuero appealed the first instance ruling.50 In response, the Constitutional Court issued the Resolution of March 16, 2001, by which it declared "the withdrawal of the remedy of amparo proposed by" the alleged victim, taking into account the following: [At] pages [seven] and following pages of the case file, there is the Resolution of the National Police Disciplinary Court, in which the plaintiff's statement is allowed and their defense lawyer is given the opportunity to speak, therefore, the right to defense in the disciplinary procedure has not been violated.[.] [...] Article 50 of the Constitutional Control Law states that the absence of the plaintiff from the public hearing will be considered as an abandonment of the action. However, a new hearing may be called if the non-appearance was due to duly proven force majeure.[.] [...] [T]here is no justification in the record for the plaintiff's absence from the hearing scheduled for December 22, 2000, at 9:00 AM., and the document with which they attempt to excuse their absence does not justify it, as it is presented on the same day and at the same time[.] [...] [T]he Third Judge of Esmeraldas was wrong in scheduling a new day and time for another hearing, as they did not take into account the aforementioned article 50 of the Constitutional Control Law. C.2. Constitutional complaint 54. On March 29, 2001, Víctor Henrry Mina Cuero, in accordance with Article 277, numeral 5, of the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador in force at that time,51 requested that the Ombudsman issue the corresponding "favorable report" on the unconstitutionality lawsuit that he intended to file against the General Order issued by the General Commander of the National Police, which had ordered, "[his] dismissal from the police ranks [...] by administrative decision of the Disciplinary Court." To that end, he attached the respective brief of the application of unconstitutionality, which included, among others, the following allegations: (a) that during the investigation by the Judicial Police took "[his] statement of inquiry [...] without the presence of [his] defense attorney"; (b) that "[t]he day of the alleged events he was not in active duty,” and (c) that his rights to the presumption of innocence and 47 Cf. Judgment of January 9, 2001, issued by the Third Civil Court of Esmeraldas, Case No. 12834-20 (case file of evidence, volume I, annex 20 to the Merits Report, page 61). 48 Cf. Minutes of the hearing held on January 12, 2001, in the Third Civil Court of Esmeraldas, case No. 1283420 (case file of evidence, volume IV, annex 3.6 to the response, pages 1743 to 1748). 49 Cf. Judgment of January 18, 2001, issued by the Third Civil Court of Esmeraldas, case No. 12834-20 (case file of evidence, volume I, annex 21 to the Merits Report, pages 94 to 96). 50 Cf. Brief submitted on January 19, 2001, by Víctor Henrry Mina Cuero before the Third Civil Court of Esmeraldas, case No. 12834-20 (case file of evidence, volume IV, annex 3(8) to the answering brief, page 1754). 51 Article 277 of the Political Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador, published on August 11, 1998, and repealed by the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador of 2008 (available at: https://www.cancilleria.gob.ec/wpcontent/uploads/2013/06/constitucion_1998.pdf): "Claims of unconstitutionality can be submitted by: [...] 5. One thousand citizens enjoying political rights, or any person, subject to a favorable report from the Ombudsman regarding its admissibility, [...]."