2 application against the State of Ecuador (hereinafter “the State” or “Ecuador”) to the Court, originating from petition No. 11,620, received at the Commission’s Secretariat on November 8, 1994. 2. The Commission submitted the application pursuant to Article 61 of the American Convention, for the Court to decide if the State has violated Articles 2 (Domestic and Legal Effects), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), 24 (Right to Equal Protection), and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, all of them in connection with Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of the same, in detriment of Mr. Rigoberto Acosta Calderón (hereinafter “Mr. Acosta Calderón” or “the alleged victim”). 3. According to the facts alleged in the application, on November 15, 1989, the Customs Military Police arrested Mr. Acosta Calderon, of Colombian nationality, under suspicion of drug trafficking. Supposedly, the statement of Mr. Acosta Calderon was not received by a Judge until two years after his detention, he was not notified of his right to consulate assistance, he was in custody pending trial during five years and a month, he was condemned on December 8, 1994 without the alleged drugs appearing at any time, and he was released on July 29, 1996 for having served part of his sentence while he was in prison pending trial. After having been released in July of 1996, the Commission lost contact with Mr. Acosta Calderon, reason for which when the application was presented his whereabouts were unknown. 4. Finally, as a consequence of the previously stated, the Commission requested the Court to order that the State adopt a series of pecuniary and non-pecuniary measures of reparation, as well as the payment of the costs and expenses generated in the processing of the case before the internal jurisdiction and before the InterAmerican System for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. II COMPETENCE 5. The Court is competent to hear the present case. Ecuador has been a State Party to the American Convention since December 28, 1977 and accepted the Court’s obligatory jurisdiction on July 24, 1984. III PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION 6. On November 8, 1994, the Inter-American Commission received a petition against Ecuador, filed by the Ecumenical Commission for Human Rights (hereinafter “CEDHU”). On March 1, 1996, the petitioners presented additional information regarding the alleged violations in detriment of Mr. Acosta Calderon. On May 2, 1996 the Commission forwarded the pertinent parts of the petition to the State and requested its observations, pursuant to the Rules of Procedure of the Commission in force at that time. 7. On October 10, 2001, the Commission approved Report No. 78/01, in which it declared the admissibility of the case and decided to proceed to the consideration of the merits. 8. On October 22, 2001, the Commission transmitted the mentioned Report of