29 137. The Court observes that the Commission requested that the violation of Article 25 of the Convention80 should be declared for the same facts, and the State acquiesced to this (supra para. 25) 138. In this regard, the Court recalls that in Advisory Opinion OC-8/87 Habeas Corpus in Emergency Situations, it affirmed that, if Articles 7(6) and 25 of the Convention are examined together: [I]t is possible to conclude that “amparo” comprises a whole series of remedies and that habeas corpus is but one of its components. An examination of the essential aspects of both guarantees, as embodied in the Convention and, in their different forms, in the legal systems of the States Parties, indicates that in some instances habeas corpus functions as an independent remedy. Here its primary purpose is to protect the personal freedom of those who are being detained or who have been threatened with detention. In other circumstances, however, habeas corpus is viewed either as the “amparo of freedom” or as an integral part of “amparo.”81 139. In the case of Ecuador, habeas corpus and the action for juridical protection [“amparo of freedom”] are remedies that are independent of the remedy of “amparo” itself, which was regulated in Article 31 of the Constitution in force at the time of the facts.82 Consequently, the only Article of the Convention applicable is Article 7(6). Therefore, the Court does not consider that Article 25 of the Convention has been violated. 80 Article 25 of the Convention stipulates: 1. Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 2. The States Parties undertake: a. to ensure that any person claiming such remedy shall have his rights determined by the competent authority provided for by the legal system of the state; b. c. to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; and to ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted. 81 Cf. Habeas Corpus in an Emergency Situation, supra note 72, para. 34 82 Article 31 of the Constitution established that: Any person may resort to the bodies of the Judiciary appointed by law and request the adoption of urgent measures, designed to make cease or avoid the committing of, or immediately remedy the consequences of, an unlawful act of authority of the public administration that violates any constitutional right and that may cause imminent and also grave and irreparable damage. To this end, the judge who must hear the recourse may not allege any inhibition, and the fact that it is a public holiday shall not be an impediment. The judge shall immediately summon the parties to be heard at a public hearing within twentyfour hours and, at the same time, if he finds it justified, shall order the suspension of any actual or imminent action that could become a violation of constitutional law. Within the following forty-eight hours, the judge shall issue his decision, which shall be complied with immediately. The suspension procedure shall be obligatorily consulted, for its confirmation or annulment, before the Constitutional Court, the body before which the recourse of appeal against the refusal to grant the suspension is admissible and, in either case, the judge must immediately forward the file to his superior.