2 III. THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS A. The petitioners 6. The petitioners allege that in November 2000 the authorities initiated an administrative procedure known as summary information of investigation (información sumaria de investigación)1 against Military Police Officer Homero Flor Freire for allegedly having committed a disciplinary breach of “professional misconduct” (“mala conducta profesional”), based on the testimony of several persons who alleged they had seen him engaging in homosexual conduct in the dormitories of the Amazonas Military Fort (Fuerte Militar Amazonas). They allege that Mr. Homero Flor denies having engaged in the conduct that led to the proceeding. They also alleged that in the conduct of the summary information procedure Homero Flor had no opportunity to witness the statements of witnesses against him or to question them. 7. The petitioners allege that by resolution of January 17, 2001, the Court of Law of the Fourth Military Zone concluded that “… there is disciplinary liability of Lt. Homero Fabián Flor Freire … accordingly the preliminary characterization of his misconduct by the Councils of Subaltern Officers and Troops, respectively, [must] be [sanctioned] as provided for by Article 117 of the Rules of Military Discipline, … should be … suspended from active duty prior to the discharge … for misconduct in keeping with the provisions of Article 87(i)2; and Article 76(j) of the Law on Personnel of the Armed Forces.” They allege that on May 7, 2001, the Council of Subaltern Officers of the Armed Force (Consejo de Oficiales Subalternos de la Fuerza Terrestre) ruled to accept the request from the Court of Law of the Fourth Military Court and suspended Homero Flor from active duty prior to his discharge from active duty in the Armed Force. They allege that in response to this decision, a request for reconsideration was filed, which was denied on June 5, 2001, and a motion of appeal was filed, which was dismissed by the Council of Superior Officers of the Armed Force (Consejo de Oficiales Superiores de la Fuerza Terrestre) on June 18, 2001. 8. The petitioners allege that they filed an amparo action against the process and the judicial resolution issued by the Judge of Law of the Fourth Military Zone, and requesting suspension of the summary information of investigation. By ruling of July 18, 2001, the Sixth Court for Civil Matters of Pichincha determined that the summary information of investigation is not a “mere administrative act, but a whole investigative process … accordingly … the amparo action is totally inadequate as it was illegally proposed; for if the illegitimate act occurred, it would not be known what the act was and where it came from.” In addition, it determined that the resolution of January 17, 2001 by the Court of Law of the Fourth Military Zone is a decision “judicial in nature” that is not yet final; and “as the amparo action is residual in nature, i.e. that one recurs to it when all remedies have been exhausted, the one presented is totally unfounded.” 9. The petitioners indicate that a motion of appeal was brought against the ruling of the Sixth Court, and that on February 4, 2002, the Constitutional Court ruled “to dismiss the constitutional amparo remedy as out of order” and held that “there is no illegitimate act The petitioners indicate that the administrative process called “summary information” (información sumaria) is conducted before a military judge. The Rules of Procedure for the Processing of Summary Information proceedings in the Armed Forces was issued by Ministerial Decision 1046 and published in General Ministerial Order 240 of December 22, 1993. Original petition received at the IACHR on August 30, 2002. 2 The petitioner makes reference to Article 87 of the Law on Personnel of the Armed Forces: “A member of the military shall be discharged for one of the following causes: … (i) For breach of good service, whether due to misconduct or professional incompetence of the member of the military, so characterized by the respective Council, in keeping with what is established in the corresponding Rules of Procedure, when he does not have the right to suspension.... Law No. 118. RO/ Sup 660 of April 10, 1991. Original petition received at the IACHR on August 30, 2002. 1