7. The petitioner held that the case was admissible inasmuch as two of the three cases brought against Mr. Montesinos were ultimately dismissed, meaning that domestic remedies had been exhausted. He stated that the third case remained open. 8. As to the alleged violation of the right to personal liberty, the petitioner indicated that police officers had arrested Mr. Montesinos without a warrant and without catching him in flagrante delicto. He maintained that the alleged victim was not informed about why he was being arrested and that he was not brought before a judicial authority within a reasonable timeframe. The petitioner added that the habeas corpus appeals to challenge the arrest were neither adequate nor effective. He further noted that the time the alleged victim was held in pretrial detention was unreasonable insofar as it lasted more than six years. 9. Regarding the alleged violation of the right to humane treatment, the petitioner claimed that while in custody, Mr. Montesinos was tortured by the guards at the prison in an effort to get him to confess to having committed a crime. He indicated that the torture consisted of beatings, electric shocks, and gas attacks. The petitioner added that the sanitary conditions in the cell where Mr. Montesinos was held for the first few days were deplorable. 10. With respect to the alleged violation of the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection, the petitioner held that the criminal prosecutions were plagued with irregularities. He indicated that from the outset, the alleged victim was not apprised of the charges against him and was unable to contact his attorney, which undermined his right to a defense. The petitioner stated that motions filed by Mr. Montesinos’ defense team for an inquiry during the proceedings were rejected. 11. The petitioner stated that the application of Article 116 of the Law on Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances to Mr. Montesinos’ case also violated his right to a defense. This, because it stipulates that a defendant’s preliminary statement and the initial police report may be considered serious indicia of guilt. He added that the length—six years—of the criminal proceedings that were ultimately dismissed was not reasonable based on international standards. 12. The IACHR takes note that the petitioner further alleged the violation of freedom from ex post facto laws, protection of honor and dignity, and [equal] protection before the law. B. The State 13. The State alleged that the case is inadmissible and that it has not incurred international responsibility. Ecuador noted that when the petition was filed domestic remedies for the three criminal cases brought against Mr. Montesinos had not been exhausted, and claimed that appeals proceedings and requests for judicial review were still available for the third case. 14. Regarding the right to personal liberty, Ecuador indicated that Mr. Montesinos was arrested in accordance with domestic law, specifically the Law on Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances. It stated that when he was arrested, Mr. Montesinos was suspected of having been involved in crimes related to drug trafficking. The State added that an arrest warrant had been issued and that leave was granted for a habeas corpus appeal to be lodged for purposes of challenging the arrest. 15. As to the alleged violation of the right to humane treatment, the State held that the petitioner had failed to effectively prove the acts of torture reportedly inflicted on Mr. Montesinos. Ecuador also indicated that the documents furnished for these proceedings do not include forensic medical exams that might demonstrate acts of torture, adding that Mr. Montesinos never filed a complaint about alleged acts of torture inflicted on him. 16. With respect to the alleged violation of the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection, Ecuador held that the criminal cases brought against Mr. Montesinos respected due process. It indicated that this is evident in the fact that two of the three criminal prosecutions were dismissed based on the principle of 2