job stability had been violated.52 55. On April 27, 2001, the Ombudsman, in letter No. 01528, addressed to the President of the Constitutional Court, issued the "favorable report" requested, thus "bringing to the attention" of said body the demand for unconstitutionality filed by Mr. Mina Cuero.53 56. The Constitutional Court issued the Resolution on August 14, 2001, through which it "[d]ismisse[d] the filed demand and orde[red] the case to be closed." To this end, inter alia, it considered: [T]he plaintiff had ample rights of defense, and there was no legal basis to challenge the decision adopted on October 25, 2000, by the Disciplinary Court of the National Police. The plaintiff attended the hearing with his defense counsel, who signed the minutes, and testimonies were received from police officers who were present at the scene [...]. [...] Consequently, there is no evidence of any proven unconstitutionality that would require a ruling by the Constitutional Court. It should be noted that by mandate of the Constitution [...] the State must adopt the necessary measures to prevent, eliminate, and sanction violence, particularly against children, adolescents, women, and the elderly. This matter should have been taken into account by the Disciplinary Court of the National Police.54 C.3. Protective Measure 57. According to the State, Víctor Henrry Mina Cuero filed a "[p]rotection [a]ction" on June 17, 2010, challenging the October 25, 2000, Resolution of the Disciplinary Court, and General Order No. 216 of November 10, 2000, issued by the General Commander of the National Police. To this end, among other matters, violations of the rights to due process and judicial protection were alleged.55 58. On July 7, 2010, the Second Court of Criminal Guarantees of Esmeraldas "[r]ejecte[d]" the action brought. For this purpose, it considered: [I]t is established that the punishment was imposed under the authority of the Disciplinary Regulations governing the National Police, therefore[,] the procedure has been duly justified. Additionally [,] the appellant has not challenged the administrative act in a timely manner before the higher bodies as of this date [...]. Despite the fact [that] the right to challenge the unconstitutionality of an act is imprescriptible [...] it cannot be said [that] [the plaintiff's] rights have been diminishe[d] [...]. [...] In this case, the applicant should have contested the administrative act before the competent court and failed to do so.56 59. Mr. Mina Cuero appealed the judgment,57 which was confirmed on January 25, 2011, by the Single Chamber of the Provincial Court of Justice of Esmeraldas, which argued: It is not evident that any constitutional rights of the plaintiff have been violated, as he has exercised his right to defense and was represented by his lawyer in the session in which the Disciplinary Court made its decision[...]; and finally, it is unacceptable and difficult to believe that the decision of the Disciplinary Court issued on October 25, 2000, by which the plaintiff in this lawsuit has been discharged from the police ranks, his rights under articles 76 and 77 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador in force as of Cf. Brief dated January 29, 2001, submitted by Víctor Henrry Mina Cuero to the Ombudsman (case file of evidence, volume I, annex 23 to the Merits Report, pages 104 to 107). 53 Cf. Official Letter No. 01528 of April 27, 2001, signed by the Ombudsman (case file of evidence, volume I, annex 24 to the Merits Report, pages 110 and 111). 54 Cf. The decision of August 14, 2001, issued by the Second Chamber of the Constitutional Court, case No. 0102001-AA (case file of evidence, volume I, annex 28 to the Merits Report, pages 120 to 122). 55 Cf. Brief submitted on June 17, 2010, by Víctor Henrry Mina Cuero, in which he filed an action of protection (case file of evidence, volume IV, annex 5.1 to the answering brief, pages 1785 to 1799). 56 Cf. Resolution of July 7, 2010, issued by the Second Court of Criminal Guarantees of Esmeralda, file No. 502010 (case file of evidence, volume IV, annex 5.8 to the answering brief, pages 1820 to 1828). 57 Cf. Brief filed on July 12, 2010 by Víctor Henrry Mina Cuero, case file No. 50-2010 (case file of evidence, volume IV, annex 5.9 to the answering brief, pages 1830 to 1831). 52