EPORT No. 42/13
PETITION 595-05
ADMISSIBILITY
CARLOS JULIO AGUINAGA AILLON (MEMBER OF THE SUPREME ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL)
ECUADOR
July 11, 2013
I.

SUMMARY

1.
On May 26, 2005, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the
Commission” or “the IACHR”) received a petition lodged by Carlos Julio Aguinaga Aillón (hereinafter “the
petitioner”), which alleges the violation by the Republic of Ecuador (hereinafter “the State” or “the
Ecuadorian State”) of articles 8 (right to a fair trial), 9 (freedom from ex post facto laws), 11 (right to
privacy), 23 (right to participate in government), 24 (right to equal protection), and 25 (right to judicial
protection), in connection with Article 1.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the
American Convention”), and Articles 1, 3, 4, and 7 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter, and Articles
16 and 43 of the Charter of the Organization of American States because of the facts related to removal
from his position as a member of Ecuador’s Supreme Electoral Tribunal.
2.
The petitioner states that he was legitimately re-elected as a member of the Supreme
Electoral Tribunal of Ecuador on January 9, 2003, for a four-year term, but in resolution R-25-160 of
November 25, 2004, the Congress arbitrarily terminated his service, violating several Constitutional
provisions and his rights recognized in the American Convention.
3.
For its part, the State alleges that the Congress made that decision legally in the exercise
of its competence to designate the members of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, as stipulated in the
Constitution. It says that the petitioner has not exhausted remedies at the domestic level, and that the
Commission cannot act as a court of appeal to review the substance of decisions of the Congress, by virtue
of the formula of the “fourth instance.”
4.
After analyzing the parties’ positions and compliance with the requirements established
in Articles 46 and 47 of the Convention, the Commission decided to declare the case admissible for
purposes of examining the alleged violation of Articles 8, 9, and 25 in connection with Article 1.1 of that
treaty, and inadmissible for purposes of examining the alleged violation of its Articles 11, 23, and 24. It
also decided to notify the parties of the decision and publish it in the Annual Report to the General
Assembly of the OAS.
II.

PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION

5.
The Commission received the petition on May 26, 2005, and assigned it number 595-05.
After a preliminary examination, the IACHR transmitted the pertinent parts of the petition to the State on
June 20, 2005, giving it two months to submit its observations. On July 31, 2008, and September 26, 2008,
the State requested that it be sent the petition’s appendixes, which were requested from the petitioner
on October 6, 2008. The State presented its observations on the petition on February 18, 2009. The
petitioner presented the petition with all its appendixes on November 5, 2009, which were forwarded to
the State on November 20, 2009, so that it could submit its response in two months. In a communication

Select target paragraph3