authority2 against the petitioners: Emilio Palacio Urrutia (journalist and editorial columnist of the newspaper El Universo), Carlos Nicolás Pérez Lapentti, Carlos Eduardo Pérez Barriga, and Cesar Enrique Pérez Barriga (directors of the newspaper El Universo), and against Compañía Anónima El Universo, the company that owned the paper. The petitioners specified that “President Rafael Correa expressly requested that his role as ‘Head of State and Government’ be taken into account, basing his complaint on the allegation that he was attacked and discredited for actions related directly to his office, considering his ‘authority’ status as President of the Republic.” They assert that “[While the President] says he is pursuing legal action as a private citizen, he is doing so with respect to criticism of his actions as President, and requests the imposition of a penalty that is only applicable to someone who defames a government authority.” In his complaint, President Correa “asked for the maximum penalty of three years in prison, and the payment of restitution in the requested amount of US $50 million […] to be imposed against the journalist and the directors jointly and severally, and for the penalty of US $30 million […] to be assessed against Compañía Anónima El Universo.” 9. The petitioners maintained that the criminal case was heard by multiple judges, some of whom recused themselves, or left the case, while others were suspended, substituted, or appointed, including for just a few hours. They stated that the trial was held on July 19, 2011, presided over by a temporary judge, “who said he was put on the case at just at that moment.” The petitioners stated that the hearing was held in “an intensely political and confrontational environment.” 10. They indicated that on July 20, 2011, the day after the abovementioned hearing had concluded, the temporary judge of the Fifteenth Supervisory Criminal Court of Guayas, Juan Paredes, issued a judgment convicting the defendants of the crime, sentencing them to three years in prison, and ordering them to pay a fine of US $12.00. He also ordered them to pay damages to complainant Rafael Correa in the amount of US $30,000, and entered a civil judgment against Compañía Anónima El Universo in the amount of US $10,000. Additionally, the petitioners were ordered to pay US $2,000 in attorney fees to President Correa’s lawyers. The petitioners underscored the physical impossibility of publishing a 156-page judgment in 25 hours (following the hearing), by a judge who has just taken cognizance of the case. According to the petitioners, when the temporary judge rendered his decision, the case file contained 5,878 pages. 11. The petitioners stated that on July 22, 2011, President Rafael Correa appealed the trial court’s decision. On that same day Carlos Nicolás Pérez Lapentti, Carlos Eduardo Pérez Barriga, and Cesar Enrique Pérez Barriga reportedly filed appeals and motions to vacate the judgment, and Emilio Palacio did the same on July 26. The petitioners added that the case was assigned to the Second Criminal Division of Guayas, which held the appeal hearing on September 16 and 20, 2011, after several continuances and irregular changes in the composition of the court. 12. On this point, the petitioners indicated that on September 5, 2011, the Court issued an order to conduct “two hearings: first, to adjudicate the motion to vacate, and later, if appropriate, to hear the appeal.” It continued to Tuesday, October 4, the hearing at which it would “exclusively hear the grounds for the motion to vacate.” That same day, President Rafael Correa issued Executive Order No. 872, declaring a state of emergency in the judiciary, which allowed for “the mobilization of all judiciary personnel,” including the judges assigned to this case. 13. The petitioners asserted that, indeed, on September 13, the regular judge of the Second Division, Primo Díaz Garaycoa, was transferred to another judicial position from September 13 to 19, and that during his brief absence the new members of the Court issued a ruling to revoke the September 5 order, which had scheduled the hearing on the motion to vacate for October 4. The Court reportedly decided to set the appeal and motion to vacate hearing for September 16. The petitioners indicated that Judge Primo Díaz completed the 2 According to the petitioners, Article 489 of the Criminal Code in force at the time of the events provided that criminal defamation [injuria calumniosa] consists of “falsely accusing another of a crime,” which under Article 493 of the Criminal Code “shall be punishable by a term of imprisonment of three years and a fine when accusations that amount to criminal defamation are directed toward government authorities.” 3