duties assigned to him in the other position earlier than anticipated and returned to the Second Division on September 15. Upon learning of the decision made in his absence, Judge Primo Díaz Garaycoa resigned. 14. The petitioners alleged that they found out that the Court had set the hearing for the following day (September 16) through a message posted at 6:00 am by Rafael Correa on his Twitter account “[…] they have set the hearing for the El Universo case for tomorrow, Friday.” The petitioners stated that, because of this, the defense attorneys went before the Second Criminal Division of Guayas that Thursday morning to challenge the order announcing the hearing. Before the hearing began the following day, the defense attorneys also requested the recusal of the judges of the Second Criminal Division “for lack of integrity, as well as for lack of impartiality.” They stated that the request for recusal “was not addressed, not even in writing.” 15. At the end of the hearing, the Second Division affirmed the conviction in its entirety. The petitioners stated that on September 27, 2011, attorneys for Emilio Palacio filed a petition for cassation challenging the conviction. On September 30, 2011, the rest of the petitioners also filed petitions for cassation. Nevertheless, they indicated that on October 4 the Second Criminal Division declined to admit Emilio Palacio’s petition for cassation, “on the grounds that he had abandoned his appeal and motion to vacate, and therefore is barred from filing a petition for cassation.” At the same time, the Court decided to entertain the petition for cassation filed by the other parties to the case. 16. The petitioners explained that on October 4, 2011, Emilio Palacio filed a petition for review of a denied appeal in order to challenge the order refusing to entertain his petition for cassation, with the objective of preventing the enforcement of his conviction. The petition for review of a denied appeal was reportedly granted, suspending the enforcement of the judgment against Emilio Palacio until the National Court of Justice adjudicated the petition for cassation filed by the other parties. On February 17, 2012, the National Court issued its judgment on the petition for cassation, denying the appeal. The petitioners reported that several days later President Rafael Correa pardoned the conviction and the National Court of Justice ordered that the case be shelved. 17. Based on these facts, the petitioners affirm that the State is internationally responsible for the violation of Articles 7 (right to personal liberty), 8 (right to a fair trial), 13 (freedom of thought and expression), and 21 (right to property) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof, to the detriment of the alleged victims. 18. On this point, and in response to the State’s allegation that the facts of this case do not entail human rights violations, the petitioners stated that the petition does not only assert that the outcome of the criminal case—that is, the three-year prisons sentence plus the “million-dollar civil judgment”—is a violation of the American Convention. The petitioners also alleged that the criminal case itself was a violation of the Convention. They explained that, “The harm was in fact done when the criminal complaint was filed by reason of a desacato [criminal defamation] provision, in the terms developed by the Commission.” They stated that, “Although the pardon terminates the sentence, it does not erase the conviction handed down by the courts of the Ecuadorian State that imposed criminal responsibility through the application of a desacato law, not only upholding the conviction against the victims but also upholding a precedent that is perfectly applicable to other journalists and media outlets that attempt to make use of their freedom of expression on matters of public interest.” They further maintain that, “The mere use of a crime of this nature to impose a jail sentence is a violation of Article 7 of the American Convention, as that measure would be unlawful and arbitrary because it is contrary to the international standards on freedom of expression and criminal law, in addition to being unreasonable and disproportionate.” 19. The petitioners alleged that these violations took place in a context where the Judiciary lacks independence, and that they demonstrate “the systematic way in which the State of Ecuador uses the government to persecute and censor journalists.” They believe that the lack of independence in the Judiciary has resulted in “the scant and ineffective judicial protection of citizens’ rights and the politicization of the justice 4