Arguments of the parties 65. The Inter-American Commission stated that the Resolution of the President of the Constitutional Tribunal of May 30, 2002, infringed the domestic right upon being deemed legal, since legal notice was not provided to Mr. Mejía Idrovo nor was it requested by a competent party within the period established by law. This generated a proceeding that was not foreseen by Ecuadorian legislation in contravention with the guarantees of Article 8 of the Convention. 66. The representatives as well as the Commission requested the Court to declare the State’s international responsibility for violation of Article 8(1) of the Convention, as the President of the Constitutional Tribunal, although the request for clarification was time-barred when filed and presented by a person outside of the proceeding, exceeding his jurisdiction, he issued the resolution of March 30, 2002, which was not notified to the alleged victim and prevented his right to a defense. 67. The State at the hearing said that by way of the briefs submitted by the Commander of the Land Forces, the President of the Constitutional Tribunal, in order to comply with the resolution that corresponds to this case, issued statement No. 039-2001 T.C. Also, it stated that the President of the Constitutional Tribunal has jurisdiction to implement the resolutions issued by the plenary of the judiciary. On the other hand, it stated that Article 8 of the Convention was not violated because the reasonable time period was not lapsed, since it is necessary to examine and consider the density of the procedural and legal actions that each includes. In its final arguments, the State argued that the Inter-American System attributed to the procedural actions of the interested party a portion of responsibility in the calculation of the reasonable period established to obtain justice, and that in this case, Colonel Mejía Idrovo, regardless of his procedural relationship in the Ecuadorian courts, 65 delayed compliance with various orders. Considerations of the Court 68. In regard to the alleged violation of Article 8 of the Convention, this Court notes that the controversy argued by the Commission and the representatives is in regard to the jurisdiction or competence of the President of the Constitutional Tribunal to admit and resolve the issue regarding the request for clarification of April 8, 2002, by the Commander General. In order to consider the application of Article 8 to the facts in the context of the processing of the case before the Constitutional Tribunal, the Court will refer to the alleged irregularities in the following manner: 1) the time-barred nature of the request for clarification of the judgment issued by the Constitutional Tribunal; 2) lack of jurisdiction of the President of the Constitutional Tribunal to make the clarification regarding the judgment by means of a resolution, and 3) failure to transfer the motion for clarification and lack of legal notice to the parties of the resolution. 65 Namely, the brief of April 4, 2002 whereby Mr. Mejia Idrovo asked to be reinstated to active duty with the immediate promotion process, and the brief of August 7, 2002, of Mr. Mejia Idrovo in which he makes a misinterpretation and invokes the unconstitutional executive orders to his promotion to the next higher rank level as of December 21, 2000. In this way, he addressed the Constitutional President of the Republic of Ecuador at the time, pointed to a disproportionate amount that denatures any judicial discretion for reparation. (brief of the final arguments of the State, f. 542). 23