Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the said members of the Sarayaku People (supra paras. 107 and 111). B.2 Regarding the remedy of amparo 272. In the context of examining the simple, prompt and effective remedies established in the provision under analysis, this Court has maintained that the filing of the remedy of amparo may have the necessary characteristics to ensure the effective protection of the fundamental rights;330 in other words, it is simple and brief. In this regard, in the proceedings before this Court concerning the facts of the instant case, the State argued that the remedy of amparo was effective to “resolve the juridical situation of the petitioner.” 273. Regarding the application for amparo filed by the OPIP on November 28, 2002 in the instant case, the Court observes that, on December 12, 2002, the Superior Court of Justice of the District of Pastaza found “irregularities in [the] processing” of the application. In addition, the Superior Court of the District of Pastaza indicated that the initial decision summoning the parties to a public hearing violated the provisions of the Constitutional Control Act and expressed “concern over the total lack of promptness in dealing with the matter, considering the social repercussions of its purpose.” In the same decision, the First Civil Judge of Pastaza was “strongly urged” “to adhere strictly to the provisions of the Constitutional Control Act, with the promptness and efficiency that the case requires.331 Similarly, although the OPIP filed a brief before the First Civil Judge of Pastaza on December 16, 2002, clarifying the address at which the defendants should be notified,332 no information or documentation was provided to enable this Court to determine whether there were any further procedural actions or a final decision by the above-mentioned court in relation to the application for amparo. 274. Based on the foregoing, the Court notes that the higher court found irregularities in the processing of the application for amparo and ordered that these be remedied. However, this Court cannot ascertain whether the First Civil Court of Pastaza complied fully with the orders of the higher court and that, consequently, this decision was effective. To the contrary, as the State itself has indicated, the remedy was inconclusive. Therefore, the Court finds that, in the present case, the amparo procedure was ineffective, because the First Civil Judge of Pastaza did not comply with the orders of the Superior Court of the District of Pastaza and prevented the competent authority from deciding on the rights of the complainants. 275. In the same way, the Court notes that on November 29, 2002, the First Civil Judge of Pastaza ordered, as a precautionary measures, the suspension of any action that could affect or threaten the rights that were the subject matter of the amparo (supra para. 88). There is no indication in the body of evidence that the authorities complied with this order. Therefore, the Court finds that the November 29, 2003, decision of the First Civil Judge of Pastaza, ordering a precautionary measure, was ineffective to prevent the situation described, and did not produce the result for which it was conceived.333 Thus, it should be reiterated that for the remedies applied in the 330 Cf. Habeas Corpus in Emergency Situations (Arts. 27.2, 25.1 and 7.6 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-8/87 of January 30, 1987, para. 32; Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 91, and Case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, para. 121. 331 Cf. Decision of the Superior Court of Justice of Pastaza, folio 8725. 332 Cf. Brief filed by the OPIP President before the First Civil Judge of Pastaza, on December 16, 2002, (evidence file, tome 14, folio 8730. 333 Cf. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador para. 98, and Case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, para. 121. 76