Division, and, in an appellate procedure, by the Military Court of Justice. The defense added that the military trial "had been declared null in order to trick it into calling for a new trial on the same charges."44 51. On March 29, 2000, a second habeas corpus writ was filed with the Mayor of the City of Quito.45 That same day, the Mayor declared the writ inadmissible, and stated the following: In the matter of the habeas corpus filed by Mr. Cortez, Espinoza Gonzalo Orland, seeing that on March 8, 23000, this Mayor's Office already resolved on and denied the same petition and the circumstances have not changed, the petition is hereby denied as inadmissible, pursuant to Article 24.16 of the Political Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador.46 52. On April 4, 2000, Gerardo Cortez, the alleged victims brother, filed a writ addressed to the Third Division of the Constitutional Tribunal in order to i) complain at the failure to notify the first rejection of the habeas corpus remedy; and ii) request a review of the constitutionality of the habeas corpus remedies filed by his brother.47 53. On May 10, 2000, the Constitutional Tribunal revoked the resolution of March 8, 2000, issued by the Mayor of Quito and stated as follows: (....) Gonzalo Orlando Cortez Espinoza was detained on February 28, 2000 without an order for deprivation of liberty issued by the competent judge. Proof of that is that on March 3, 2000, in a writ issued at 10:15 a.m., the Judge of the Third Criminal Court of Pichincha, having heard reports by Admiral Hugo Unda Aguirre that he was detained, ordered that an arrest warrant be issued to keep him detained on the Court's orders; in other words, the arrest warrant was issued when the acting mayor of the metropolitan district of Quito, upon processing the habeas corpus writ, had ordered that Gonzalo Orlando Cortez Espinoza be brought before him at 9:30 a.m. on March 3.48 54. The next day, Mr. Cortes was released.49 55. The IACHR does not have information on the status of proceedings until September 2, 2009, when the Third Criminal Court of Pichincha declared that the criminal case against Mr. Cortez had prescribed under the statute of limitations. The Third Criminal Court ruled as follows: 1. - That the crime of which Mr. Gonzalo Orlando Cortez Espinoza was accused is one which should be punished with imprisonment; 2.- That since July 19, 1997, when the judge of Third Criminal Court of Pichincha issued the order instituting criminal proceedings, until now, the lapse of time provided for in the aforementioned legal instrument has been exceeded by far. Therefore, and pursuant to Article 101 of the Criminal Code, the present criminal case is hereby declared prescribed.50 Third Criminal Court of Pichincha. Written request of Mr. Cortez in civil criminal proceedings LP-46-2000, dated March 17, 2000. Attached to the petition of March 29, 2000. 45 Office of the Mayor of the Metropolitan City of Quito. Habeas Corpus petition of Mr. Cortez addressed to the May of the Metropolitan City of Quito., dated March 29, 2000. Attached to the petitioner's communication of April 20, 2000. 46 Office of the Mayor of the Metropolitan District of Quito. Denial of the constitutional habeas corpus writ filed by Mr. Cortez, dated March 29, 2000. Attached to the petitioner's communication of April 20, 2000. 47 Constitutional Tribunal. Third Division. Written request of Gerardo Cortez,, dated April 4, 2000. Attached to the petitioner's communication of April 20, 2000. 48 Constitutional Tribunal. Resolution No. 131-III-SALA-2000 in Case #012-2000-HC, dated May 10, 2000. Attached to the State’s communication of June 19, 2000. 49 Human Rights Commission of the National Congress. Brief by Mr. Cortez, dated May 18, 2000. Attached to the State’s communication of June 19, 2000. 50 Third Criminal Court of Pichincha. Writ of prescription of civil criminal proceedings LP-46-2000 , dated September 2, 2009. Attached to Official Letter No. 993-2010-JTPP of December 23, 2010 addressed to the National Human Rights Directorate of the Office of the Attorney General (Procuraduría General del Estado). Attached to the State’s communication of March 2, 2011. 44 10