Montesinos Mejía and proceeded to arrest him.12 According to the report, Mr. Montesinos was informed that they had a warrant for his arrest as well as a warrant to search his home.13 The case file does not contain either the arrest warrant or the search warrant. 27. The Operación Ciclón police report indicates that the alleged victim stated he had received the weapons from strangers sent by the wife of Jorge Reyes Torres, who asked him keep them as a favor. The following conclusion was drawn: That the detainees (…) were in possession of illegal firearms and ammunition (…) Given that Jorge Hugo Reyes Torres and the other detainees (…) comprise an international drug trafficking organization, we concluded that the weapons were being used for this organization’s illegal activities.14 28. The petitioner’s version, however, indicates that the members of the police who arrested Mr. Montesinos were dressed in camouflage and wore balaclavas over their faces. He stated that the police had their weapons trained on Mr. Montesinos as they took him out of the car, and further alleged that when Mr. Montesinos asked why he was being arrested, the police responded that he was being arrested “because the police has the power to do so.”15 29. With respect to the search, the petitioner’s version indicates that when he was taken to his home after his arrest, Mr. Montesinos remained in the police vehicle for two hours. The petitioner noted that police officers entered the home and, upon returning to the vehicle, told Mr. Montesinos that they had found weapons and so he would have to sign a record thereof. He stated that when Mr. Montesinos refused, a hood was placed over his head.16 B. What happened to Mr. Montesinos after his arrest 30. The case file includes a report from the Medical Department of the National Police indicating that Mr. Montesinos was given a medical examination the same day he was arrested. The report stated that Mr. Montesinos’ diagnosis was “without observations.”17 The petitioner stated that Mr. Montesinos was never given a medical examination and was only asked some questions.18 31. The petitioner described how Mr. Montesinos was placed in a cell measuring approximately 11 m2 that was guarded by two plainclothes guards carrying machine guns. He stated that 13 other people were lying on the floor inside the same cell and that the next day Mr. Montesinos observed a number of those individuals being taken from the cell to be interrogated and that they returned “beaten and scared, talking about the use of electricity and gas during the interrogations.” He added that on June 23, 1992, Mr. Montesinos indicated to the guards that he had been in custody for more than a day without knowing why he had been arrested, but received no response.19 32. On June 25, 1992, the alleged victim made a preliminary statement to three police officers and three prosecutors from the Public Prosecution Ministry.20 The petitioner alleged that Mr. Montesinos did not have a defense attorney present when he gave that statement. The State did not contest that assertion. 12 Report submitted to the Chief of the Office of Criminal Investigation, issued by Police Lieutenant Hugo Durán Castro at 8:00 p.m. on June 21, 1992. 13 Report submitted to the Chief of the Office of Criminal Investigation, issued by Police Lieutenant Hugo Durán Castro at 8:00 p.m. on June 21, 1992. 14 Investigative Report No. 080-JPEIP-CP1-92 of July 17, 1992 in connection with Case No. P1-142-JPEIP-CP1-92 for the Provincial Head of Narcotics and Interpol of Pichincha regarding the so-called Operación Ciclón. 15 Communication from the petitioner from August 30, 1996. 16 Communication from the petitioner from August 30, 1996. 17 Police health evaluation of Mario Alfonso Montesinos Mejía; document issued on July 27, 1992. 18 Resolution 182-96-CP, issued by the Constitutional Rights Court in the framework of Case No. 45/96-TC. 19 Communication from the petitioner from August 30, 1996. 20 Statement by Mr. Mario Alfonso Montesinos Mejía, taken by the National Investigations Bureau, Command/Sub-Command of Interpol-Pichincha. Part of Case P1-142-JPEIP-CP-1-92 and Report No. 080-JPEIP-CP-1-92. Given on June 25, 1992. 5