REPORT Nº 8/07 PETITION 1425-04 ADMISSIBILITY HUGO QUINTANA COELLO ET AL. (JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT) ECUADOR February 27, 2007 I. SUMMARY 1. On December 30, 2004, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission”) received a petition lodged by Hugo Quintana Coello and 27 other former members of the Supreme Court of Justice of Ecuador (hereinafter “the petitioners”), 1 which alleges violation by the Republic of Ecuador (hereinafter “the State”) of Articles 8 (right to a fair trial), 9 (freedom from ex post facto laws), 23 (right to participate in government), 24 (right to equal protection), 25 (right to judicial protection), all in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention”). 2. The petitioners say that on December 8, 2004, they were relieved of their duties as members of the Supreme Court of Justice by the National Congress acting in concert with the Office of the President of the Republic. They assert that they had been legitimately elected to their offices, which were not subject to a limited tenure, and that the dismissal was unconstitutional and arbitrary, in contravention of express mandates contained in the American Convention. 3. The State holds that there is no circumstantial evidence nor consistent presumptions from which to conclude that any violation whatever occurred, nor was it determined that there was any support for or tolerance of acts committed by agents of the State, and therefore the alleged facts fail to establish violations of the rights protected by the American Convention. The State further argues that the petitioners did not make use of the domestic remedies available to them and, accordingly, requests the Commission to declare the petition inadmissible and proceed to its closure in keeping with Article 47 of the American Convention. 4. Having examined the positions of the parties in the light of the admissibility requirements set down at Article 46 of the American Convention, the Inter-American Commission decides to declare the case admissible as regards Articles 8, 9, 25 and 1(1) of said international instrument. Accordingly, the IACHR notifies the parties of the instant report, makes it public, and decides to include it in its Annual Report to the General Assembly of the OAS. II. PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION 5. The Commission received the petition on December 30, 2004, and registered it as number 1425-04. On March 15, 2005, the Commission transmitted the petition to the State and granted it two months to reply. In a communication received on May 16, 2005, the State requested additional time in which to submit its reply; it was given 30 days. In a communication received on May 31, 2005, Dr. Camilo Mena Mena notified his desistance from the petition lodged. On August 4, 2005, the Commission received a communication from the State informing that it had engaged with the petitioners in talks designed to reach a friendly settlement. In a communication received on August 10, 2005, the petitioners requested the Inter-American Commission to place itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to reaching a friendly settlement. In a communication of August 31, 2005, the Commission placed itself at 1 Ernesto Albán Gómez, Jorge Andrade Lara, Santiago Andrade Ubidia, José Julio Benítez Astudillo, Armando Bermeo Castillo, Eduardo Brito Mieles, Nicolás Castro Patiño, Teodoro Coello Vásquez, Alfredo Contreras Villavicencio, Arturo Donoso Castellón, Galo Galarza Paz, Luis Heredia Moreno, Estuardo Hurtado Larrea, Ángel Lescano Fiallo, Camilo Mena Mena (who later desisted of his petition), Milton Moreno Aguirre, Galo Pico Mantilla, Hernán Quevedo Terán, Jorge Ramírez Álvarez, Carlos Riofrío Corral, Clotario Salinas Montaño, Armando Serrano Puig, José Vicente Troya Jaramillo, Rodrigo Varea Avilez, Jaime Velasco Dávila, Miguel Villacís Gómez and Gonzalo Zambrano Palacios. 1

Select target paragraph3