testimonies from police officers who were present at the scene of the incident had been received. However, the Constitutional Court did not provide reasons for not accepting the arguments presented by the alleged victim, thus failing to provide a complete and sufficient response to his claims. Indeed, Mr. Mina Cuero, in addition to alleging a violation of his right to defense, also claimed the lack of jurisdiction of the disciplinary body, as well as violations of his right to presumption of innocence and job stability. The Constitutional Court did not rule on any of these allegations. 123. On July 7, 2010, the Second Criminal Guarantees Court of Esmeraldas rejected a protection action filed by Mr. Mina Cuero. The court based its decision on the jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Court to impose the sanction and on the alleged failure of the interested party to timely challenge the decision, without specifying which remedy was allegedly omitted. Upon reviewing the case on appeal, the Single Chamber of the Provincial Court of Justice of Esmeraldas confirmed the first instance judgment on January 25, 2011. Their decision was based on the argument that Mr. Mina Cuero had exercised his right to defense by attending the hearing with his attorney before the Disciplinary Court. Additionally, they stated that considering the date of the resolution imposing the dismissal sanction (October 25, 2000), no rights recognized in the constitution effective from 2008 could have been violated. 124. Based on the above, the Court considers that, regardless of the outcome of the decisions rendered, the jurisdictional bodies that reviewed the successive claims filed by Mr. Mina Cuero did not conduct a specific examination of the allegations made by him regarding the violation of his fundamental rights. Such analysis should have been reflected in reasoning that explained the grounds for not accepting the arguments presented, in order to provide effective judicial protection to the alleged victim. Consequently, the Court concludes that the Ecuadorian State is internationally responsible for the violation of Article 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same international instrument, to the detriment of Víctor Henrry Mina Cuero. VIII.4 RIGHT TO WORK, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT AND ENSURE RIGHTS97 A. Arguments of the parties 125. The representative claimed that "the unlawful decision adopted by the Disciplinary Court [...] orde[red] the separation [of the alleged victim] from the ranks of the [N]ational [P]olice," which determines that "[his] right to work protected by Article 26 of the American Convention was violated." 126. The State pointed out that there are no elements to determine a violation of Article 26 of the Convention because in the specific case, Mr. Mina Cuero had sufficient guarantees in the administrative and constitutional field to claim his rights. The Commission did not make any statement regarding this matter. B. Considerations of the Court 127. In its brief of requests and arguments, the representative expressly referred to a violation the right to work. In this sense, the Court will address that related to the scope of the right to work, and in particular, the right to job stability, understood as a right protected 97 Article 25 of the American Convention, in relation to article 1(1) of the same international instrument.