39. On August 13, 1992 the First Judge of the Criminal Court issued an order for remand into custody, imposing pretrial detention on Mr. Montesinos pursuant to Article 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.28 40. On November 17 and 30, 1994 Mr. Montesinos’ defense team asked the Superior Court of Justice of Quito to revoke the pretrial detention.29 The petitioner claimed that those requests never received a response. The State did not contest that information, nor did it furnish documentation to the contrary.30 41. On October 13, 1995 Mr. Montesinos sent a communication to the Supreme Court of Justice, challenging the length of his pretrial detention and the criminal prosecution against him.31 He also alleged deplorable conditions at “Social Rehabilitation Center No. 1 in Quito.” 42. The Commission has no information about the date Mr. Montesinos was released. C. The criminal proceedings 43. The case file reveals that three criminal cases were brought against Mr. Montesinos for the following offenses: (i) Illicit enrichment; (ii) conversion and transfer of assets; and (iii) engaging in front operations.32 The orders to initiate proceedings for the first two charges were issued on November 30, 1992, while the order for the third charge was issued on November 18, 1992.33 44. The IACHR notes that the grounds for these proceedings lay in the September 1990 Law on Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances and underscores the following provisions: Article 116. Probative value of pretrial actions. The police report and the pretrial statement given by the accused in the presence of the public prosecutor shall constitute a serious assumption of guilt, provided that the corpus delicti is proven. Article 121.- Mandatory referral. The order revoking pretrial detention, suspension, or cassation of arrest, detention, and seizure measures shall not have effect unless confirmed by a higher body, with a prior, mandatory, and favorable opinion34 from the respective Prosecutor, which body shall issue an opinion within 24 hours of receiving the proceeding. Article 122.- Judgment. When issuing a ruling, the judge, taking into account the facts and evidence, shall adhere to the principles of reasoned judgment (…) whether a conviction or acquittal, the ruling must be referred to a higher body. The accused shall not be released until this higher body issues its decision. 45. The IACHR further points out that it lacks full details about how each of the criminal proceedings unfolded. The determinations made below are based on the information contained in the case file. 28 Constitutional Order to Remand into Custody No. 089-I92-EC issued in Quito on August 13, 1992 by Isabel Villavicencio, First Judge of the Criminal Court of Pichincha. 29 Petition in the framework of Proceeding 91-92 by defense attorney Dr. Rodrigo Bucheli Mera, addressed to the Chief Judge of the Superior Court of Justice of Quito, received on November 17, 1994. August 30, 1996 petition against the Government of the Republic of Ecuador for violations of the American Convention on Human Rights, filed by the petitioner, Dr. Alejandro Ponce-Villacis, in representation of the alleged victim, Mr. Mario Alfonso Montesinos Mejía; observations from the State from July 28, 2016. 30 August 30, 1996 petition against the Government of the Republic of Ecuador for violations of the American Convention on Human Rights, filed by the petitioner, Dr. Alejandro Ponce-Villacis, in representation of the alleged victim, Mr. Mario Alfonso Montesinos Mejía; observations from the State from July 28, 2016. 31 Letter dated October 13, 1995, from Colonel Mario Montesinos to Carlos Solorzano Constantine, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. 32 Resolution 182-96-CP, issued by the Constitutional Rights Court in the framework of Case No. 45/96-TC. 33 Resolution 182-96-CP, issued by the Constitutional Rights Court in the framework of Case No. 45/96-TC. 34 This was declared unconstitutional on the merits via Resolution No. 119-1-97 of the Constitutional Court (Official Record No. 222 of December 24, 1997). 7