202. The IACHR notes that Ms. Chimbó said that from the filing of the complaint until mid-2005 she had to pay for police agents to go to the Julio Endara Psychiatric Hospital. She also said that the prosecutor told her that her son “is already lost, doesn’t she have other children to look after” (“ya está perdido, que si no tiene otros hijos para ir a cuidar”). 355 In addition, Ms. Chimbó said that even though she told the authorities that a person institutionalized at the hospital told her that Mr. Guachalá had suffered a heart attack at that center, and that he asked him to ask for help, the State did not act with diligence to look further into that account and to confirm or discard its veracity based on a lines of investigation to look into it and the taking of other evidence. The IACHR notes that the CRPD Committee has held that persons with intellectual or psychosocial disabilities may appear in judicial proceedings. 356 Despite that, in the context of the investigation, the taking of statements was focused on the hospital staff and not the patients who were institutionalized at the time of the facts, including the person who Ms. Guachalá says told her about the heart attack. 203. The Commission further notes that from mid-2005 to July 2006, the date on which the case was archived, no investigative steps were taken. The IACHR says that the decision to archive the matter was based on the fact that “there has not been a determination of the existence of any offense”. Nonetheless, in general terms, the evidence put into the record prior to that decision does not suggest the design and exhaustion of a line of investigation taking into account the possible death of Mr. Guachalá at the hospital and a possible coverup of his death by the staff at that center. 204. The IACHR notes that after the criminal complaint was filed the petitioner filed a complaint with the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsperson and a writ of habeas corpus. As regards the complaint before the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsperson, the IACHR notes that the DINATED said that the Julio Endara Psychiatric Hospital has “full responsibility … for this nefarious occurrence, which has now gone one year with no solution.” The IACHR observes that even though the DINATED asked the Ministry of Health to take several steps, there is no information as to whether they were carried out. In addition, in its January 2015 submission the State indicated that the investigations into that complaint continue, without Mr. Guachalá’s whereabouts having been determined. In this regard, the Commission observes that beyond isolated actions to search for the victim, there is no information about a search plan designed to find Mr. Guachalá, that takes into account the indicia that arise from the record and that involves, in a coordinated manner, all the relevant state authorities. With respect to the writ of habeas corpus, the IACHR notes that initially the office of the mayor 205. of the metropolitan district of Quito merely summonsed Mr. Guachalá, even though it had already been indicated that he had gone missing from the hospital. In response to that situation the petitioners filed a submission asking that the State be called on to adopt measures to search for Mr. Guachalá’s whereabouts. The Commission observes that during a year-and-a-half there was no response from the authorities, until in April 2006 the Constitutional Court indicated that as there was no resolution of the case in this time, the “party has been left in a defenseless state.” The IACHR recalls that the Constitutional Court held that “it is not admissible in a State … for a person to remain disappeared for more than two years, and less admissible is it for its organs to not coordinate appropriate actions to determine his whereabouts.” Despite that resolution, the Commission does not have any information about the measures taken in the context of the writ of habeas corpus. In this connection, the IACHR considers that habeas corpus is not an effective remedy for addressing the situation of deprivation of liberty and disappearance of Luis Eduardo Guachalá in a psychiatric hospital under the custody of the State. In addition, in view of the time elapsed, it did not come forth with a prompt and effective response with the immediacy required in circumstances such as those of the instant case. 206. Moreover, the IACHR observes that in 2013 an administrative investigation was launched into the disappearance of Mr. Guachalá. The IACHR notes that said investigation was begun 10 years after the facts. The IACHR emphasizes the lack of impetus in the investigation and the absence of specific measures to search for him and clarify what happened during that time. IACHR, Public hearing, April 4, 2016. United Nations, Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Concluding observations on the initial report of Ethiopia, November 4, 2016, para. 31. 355 356 38