49 point of view; [a]dopt the measures necessary for the judicial criminal system to effectively comply with Ecuadorian legislation; [c]reate an internal mechanism, either judicial or administrative, in which the petitioners can present their complaints regarding faults in the opportune and effective operation of the criminal justice system before an internal organization and through which they may obtain reparations for the violations established by the […] Court.” Arguments of the representatives 162. The representatives alleged that: a) “[g]iven the similarities [that exist with the case of Suárez Rosero], it becomes necessary to point out that Ecuador has not prevented that the situation repeat itself[,] on one hand and[,] on the other[,] that if those situations that occurred prior to the judgment of the case of Suárez Rosero were solved in an effective manner and through domestic mechanisms;” b) in order to “avoid that the violations continue repeating themselves […] all those stipulations that establish a discriminatory treatment in detriment of those detained for crimes related to the Law on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances must be annulled. Thus, the State must specifically revoke and eliminate the final provision of [Article] 37 of the Law on Compliance of Judgments introduced in virtue of the provision of [Article] 1 of Law 44, published in the Official Newspaper 218, of December 18, 1997;” c) “the State has the obligation to introduce the legal amendments necessary to guarantee the possibility to judicially appeal all act, issued by any authority, judge, or tribunal, through which fundamental rights guaranteed by a Law, the Constitution, or the American Convention are violated;” d) “the State [should] eliminate all constitutional limitations to legal protection;” e) the State must adopt the measures necessary “to make the guarantee to consular protection effective in the terms foreseen in [Article] 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations”; f) the State “must create an independent commission to investigate the violations to human rights derived from the fight against drug trafficking.” Also, “the results obtained from the final report issued by said Commission, [should be] presented to the Prosecutor’s Office so they may begin the criminal procedures to obtain judgments and sanctions against the responsible parties. In the same manner, [the State should acknowledge] the evidentiary value of said results for the effect of civil causes the victims could decide to pursue against the State in order to obtain a reparation;” g) the State must “investigate and punish those responsible of the violations to [Mr. Acosta Calderón’s] human rights;” h) the State must eliminate “Mr. […] Acosta Calderón’s name from the public registries in which he appears to have a criminal record;”