Judgment No 335-13-JP power of the state, based on the basic norms and principles of the inter-American human rights system. FACTS The plaintiff, who is of Cuban nationality, applied for Ecuadorian nationality by naturalisation, due to a common-law marriage to an Ecuadorian citizen. In 2009, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Human Mobility, (‘the Ministry’) granted him Ecuadorian nationality by naturalisation. 12 In mid-2010, the Ministry revoked the plaintiff’s nationality, suspended his rights by virtue of nationality and ordered the deactivation and withdrawal of his Ecuadorian identification documents. The Ministry based its decision on the fact that the plaintiff provided a false document and therefore did not comply with one of the requirements under Ecuadorian law for the acquisition of nationality. 13 The Ministry published a press release with the names of the persons whose nationality had been revoked by naturalisation, without individualising the content of the acts of revocation. 14 Similarly, in the Court's file, there is no record of notification to the plaintiff of the decision revoking the nationality. Despite there being no record of the notification, in 2013, the Contentious Administrative District Court of Quito declared the decision to revoke the plaintiff’s nationality to be in accordance with the law. 15 In this regard, it should be clarified that within the framework of the Ecuadorian judicial system, there is the contentiousadministrative jurisdiction in charge of the control of the legality of administrative acts issued by the public administration. On the other hand, there is the constitutional jurisdiction, which is responsible for the review of the decisions of the judges of instance in the action of protection claim relating to human rights. In 2011, the plaintiff had his Ecuadorian identification documents withheld upon his departure to Cuba through Guayaquil Airport. He was subsequently detained in the same place for more than three days and returned by the migration authorities of Cuba. 16 In 2013, the plaintiff filed an action for protection against the Ministry and other entities, in which he alleged that he was not notified of the resolution that revoked his nationality, which was denied in the first instance, appealed by the plaintiff, and confirmed in the second instance. 17 The first instance judges agreed that this action was not the appropriate mechanism to define the legality of the act of revocation of nationality, that there had been no violation of the rights alleged by the plaintiff, and that there were no other means of legal defence to challenge the act of revocation. 18 Finally, the second instance judgment was referred to the Constitutional Court of Ecuador for review. 19 The Court then issued the JP decision. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 JP (n 5) 3 [17], 6 [33] (Salazar Marín J). ibid 3 [18]–[20]. ibid 4 [22]. ibid 4 [25]. ibid 5 [30]–[31]. ibid 4–5 [26]. Action of Protection No 09123-2013-0171, cited in JP (n 5) 1 [1]. JP (n 5) 1 [2]. 3