83. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court refers to the decision issued on May 20, 2003 by the Plenary of the Constitutional Tribunal, which revoked the decision of the President of the Constitutional Tribunal of May 30, 2002, stating that “the parties, in principle, await the resolution of the Plenary of the Constitutional Tribunal 72 of March 12, 2002, and that no subsequent order can modify that resolution” (supra para. 54). Therefore, the Court concludes that such irregularities were corrected within the domestic courts. Because of this, it does not declare a violation of Article 8(1) of the Convention in this case. * 84. In what regards the alleged violation of a reasonable time period, the Court notes that the arguments of the Commission and representatives are focused on the alleged lack of compliance with the judgment of March 12, 2002, by the State authorities with jurisdiction to do so. Given that the lack of implementation of the judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal is directly linked to effective judicial protection of the execution of domestic rulings, this Court will carry out its analysis in the section on Article 25(2)(c) of the American Convention. C. Effective judicial protection in the implementation of the rulings (Article 25 of the American Convention) Arguments of the parties 85. The Commission expressed that the State has not complied with the mandate to provide reparation to the victim for damages incurred given the application of two executive decrees that resulted in the suspension and discharge of the victim, thereby producing an unreasonable delay (contrary to its own standards) of more than eight years in the effective implementation of the judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of March 12, 2002. Moreover, it found that “the noncompliance with the judicial decisions not only affects legal certainty but also threatens the basic principles of the Rule of Law”, to which the State upon guaranteeing the rights enshrined in the Convention, must not only respect them (negative obligation), but must also take all appropriate measures to ensure them (positive obligation). Due to the foregoing, the State violated Article 25 of the American Convention, in accordance with Article 1(1) of that international instrument, to the detriment of José Alfredo Mejía Idrovo. 86. The representatives argued that “the declaration of unconstitutionality of the Executive Decrees of suspension and discharge produces an immediate revocation pursuant to that established in Article 276, numeral 2, of the Constitution [in force at said time], to which its direct consequence is the reinstatement of the offer to the institution, the promotion and payment of loss of income. Nevertheless, the order of the Constitutional Tribunal was not complied with by the State, arguing that said decision was not retroactive,73 without the body of constitutional control carrying out 72 However, it is noted that the decision of the Plenary of Constitutional Tribunal of May 20, 2003 did not conduct an analysis of the irregularities in the procedure followed by the Constitutional President of the Tribunal. 73 It is non-retroactive when the ruling is about general -rules, laws, regulations, ordinances, statutes- but when the decision is about individual rights then in a correct application of paragraph 2 of that constitutional provision, the act declared unconstitutional does not have legal effect, reverting the 27