56. On October 8, 2009, the Constitutional Court ruled on the noncompliance action filed by Mr. Mejía Idrovo, stating that: The declaration of unconstitutionality results in the expulsion of the law or legal instrument classified as such (unconstitutional), which from that point on it does not produce any effects; however, as a general rule, the effects produced during the period between the emergence of the rule and its declaration of unconstitutionality, exist and can not be ignored unless they involve effects where from the non-observance everything reverts back to its previous state. Thus, there are cases whose effects are such that it is impossible to go back to the previous state; on the other hand, there are other cases where the effects are such that they could go back to previous state. When it comes to that which regards the case at hand, there is no doubt about the unconstitutionality of the presidential decrees, those of which gave rise to the declaration of suspension and discharge of the officer of the Armed Forces that, in this case in particular, plays the role of plaintiff; however, the nature of this case is one whose effects can not be ignored and carried back to the previous state, because it is physically impossible to apply retroactivity in such a way that the plaintiff is returned to his original status, since this possibility does not depend on mere will or human desire, but rather, it depends on the factual constraints of the real world. Therefore, it is physically impossible to go back in time, imagining that facts revert back to their original state, as that would not imply a lack of knowledge of and invalidation of any type of event or action that emerged or was alive during the period between the enactment of Presidential Decrees and the present, that is: the mandates, orders, and decisions of the Land Forces and those military officials who carried out their corresponding roles in the absence of the plaintiff, although his absence was beyond their control. 53 In addition, it ordered that: a) The reinstatement of the plaintiff to the professional status he held within the Land Forces, on the date immediately prior to the issuance of Executive Decrees declared unconstitutional. b) The recognition of patrimonial rights consisting of the payment of all fees that so correspond in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, as well as those for loss of earning that he stopped receiving as of the declaration of unconstitutionality, until the date of his effective reinstatement therein; c) The promotion of administrative and judicial actions to enforce the right of repetition to the benefit of the State, for the amounts it paid as a result of the noncompliance of the resolution of the former Constitutional Tribunal. 54 57. On November 9, 2009, the Commander General of the Army forwarded the President of the Republic the draft of the Executive Decree for the reinstatement of Mr. Mejía Idrovo to active service, in order to render full compliance to the By means of Executive Decree in mentioned judgment55 (supra para. 56). 53 Cf. Judgment No. 0013-09-SIS-CC of the Constitutional Court of Ecuador on October 8, 2009 (annexes to the brief of pleadings and motions, annex 60, fs. 1889 to 1897). 54 Judgment No. 0013-09-SIS-CC of the Constitutional Court of Ecuador, supra note 53. 55 Cf. According to the State in official letter No. 2009-1199-DJFT the General Commander of the Army forwarded tot he President of the Republic the draft of Executive Decree for the reinstatement of Mr. Mejía Idrovo to active service (Case file of Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, brief of final arguments of the State, tome III, f. 538). 20