vacated, Mr. Cortez had requested that the bond be given back to him. However, the petitioner said, that request was denied by the competent authorities. B. State 8. The State argued that it bears no international responsibility in the instant case. This was because both detentions of Mr. Cortez and the criminal proceedings against him had been conducted in accordance with the provisions of the domestic legal order and international standards. 9. With regard to the criminal proceedings before the military criminal jurisdiction, the State indicated that "the referral of the proceedings to the ordinary jurisdiction had corrected any irregularity or violation of human rights." It maintained that the criminal proceedings in a civilian court had observed all guarantees of due process. It stated that the alleged victim had always known the reasons for his detention. 10. Regarding Mr. Cortez's first detention, Ecuador argued that he had never filed a habeas corpus writ querying it. With respect to the second detention, the State maintained that it had been based on an arrest warrant. It added that the alleged victim had filed a habeas court writ, as a result of which an order had been issued to release Mr. Cortez. 11. Concerning the allegations of acts of torture, the Ecuadorian State maintained that the petitioner had not presented any documentary evidence in support of them. The State held that the statements made by Mr. Cortez regarding them are inconsistent. The State added that the medical certificate issued during Mr. Cortez's first detention described him as being in good health. 12. As for the allegations of violation of the right to private property, the State indicated that the bond had been set legally as an alternative to pre-trial detention. It pointed out that said bond had been collected as required by law and deposited in the Central Bank of Ecuador. III. DETERMINATIONS OF FACT A. Regarding Mr. Cortez' first detention and the military criminal proceedings 13. At the time of the facts, Gonzalo Orlando Cortez Espinoza had been a member of the Ecuadorian Armed Forces, who had started as an aeronautical technician and had then risen to the rank of Second Sergeant in the Air Force.2 On February 28, 1994, the Ministry of National Defense granted Mr. Cortez the discharge he had voluntarily requested.3 Following his discharge ad until early 1997, Mr. Cortez had worked as a technician in Ícaro, a private sector company.4 14. On January 21, 1977, Mr. Cortez testified before the Head of the Department of Intelligence of the Military Air Transportation Command and the Military Prosecutor of the First Air Division (Primera Zona Aérea) in connection with an investigation into a possible theft and sale of radio-navigation equipment from a plane pertaining to the Ecuadorian Air Force. Mr. Cortez' s testimony reads as follows: I was visited approximately three months ago by engineer Juan Guevara, a representative of several American aviation equipment maintenance and repair companies (...), who asked me if I could get him some airplane electronic system parts. I told him that I was not in a position to do that but that I might perhaps be able to contact another person to see if he could get what he wanted. So I contacted First Air Force Sergeant Patricio Caizapanta, who said he would look into the possibility of doing and obtaining what the engineer wanted, so that I was practically longer involved in the matter. At no point did I have any idea of the cost of this or of the avionics equipment concerned, although I did point out to Sergeant Caizapanta tat Ministry of Defense. Archive of Armed Forces personnel. Severance pay No. No. 000557 of March 3, 2005. Appendix to the petitioner's communication of December 2, 2013. 3 Ministry of Defense. Archive of Armed Forces personnel. Severance pay No. No. 000557 of March 3, 2005. Appendix to the petitioner's communication of December 2, 2013. 4 Ecuadorian Social Security Institute Membership card of Gonzalo Orlando Cortez Espinoza. Employer certificates of employee/worker entries and departures. Attached to the petition of March 29, 2000. 2 2

Select target paragraph3