legal code, as well as the compliance with the judgments or reports of international human rights organizations, when the rule or decision sought after involves an obligation to make or not make a decision clear, express, and enforceable. The action will be brought before the Constitutional Court.” 110. In response to said norm, the expert witness Alex Iván Valle Franco, noted in the public hearing that: [T]his guarantee has as a principal strength […] the establishment of legal certainty, […] and being in line with the new principles that have been provided to public servants in the current constitution under the principles of efficiency, opportunity, effectiveness and more, because although there were some judgments of certain tribunals or international resolutions that were not met and that [at the] time there was no appropriate mechanism for effective action, now there is the noncompliance action. 111. In light of the foregoing, the Court deems that the State did not complyfor a prolonged period of time-with an effective judicial protection to execute its domestic rulings. After the passage of nine years since the declaration of unconstitutionality of Executive Decrees Nos. 1185 and 1680 that discharged Mr. Mejía Idrovo, the State has not effectively complied with the obligations derived from the ruling. This generated a new violation to the detriment of the victim upon leaving him in a state of helplessness and legal uncertainty, which impeded him from duly reestablishing his contested and recognized rights by competent authorities. Moreover, given that the ruling of the Constitutional Tribunal was self-executing, the authorities responsible for its implementation were negligent in carrying it out. It was not until seven years after the issuance of the ruling, that the victim was provided with the necessary measures in Ecuador to appeal said noncompliance, and notwithstanding, to date, that ordered by the Constitutional Court has not been complied with in an integral manner (supra paras. 56 and 107, infra paras. 154 and 155). Therefore, the State, through the judiciary and other authorities responsible for implementing the ruling, has failed in its duty to ensure full compliance with the mentioned judgments, in violation of Article 25(2)(c) of the Convention. 112. In conclusion of the present Chapter, the Court considers that the State did not guarantee an effective remedy to redress the affected legal situation nor did it guarantee the implementation of the domestic rulings, by means of effective judicial protection, in violation of Articles 25(1) and 25(2)(c) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Mr. Mejía Idrovo. VII OBLIGATION TO ADOPT DOMESTIC LEGAL EFFECTS AND EQUAL PROTECTION BEFORE THE LAW (ARTICLES 2 AND 24 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION) 1) Regarding the alleged violation of Article 2 of the American Convention Arguments of the parties 113. The Inter-American Commission did not allege a violation of Article 2 of the American Convention. The representatives of the victim expressed in their brief of pleadings and motions that “the actions of the national authorities demonstrate that the State” has not complied with the obligation enshrined in Article 2 of the American Convention upon not adopting, through its constitutional processes, the legislative or other measures necessary to make Mr. Mejía Idrovo’s rights effective, 35