3. Front operations and straw men (Article 78 of the Law on Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances42) 51. The information available on this proceeding is minimal. The information that does exist reveals that there was an order to initiate proceedings charging Mr. Montesinos with this crime that also ordered pretrial detention. In an interlocutory order issued on November 5 of that year, the preliminary proceedings were formally concluded and the Pichincha Prosecutor was ordered to make a decision regarding who was required to issue an opinion within a period of six days.43 52. The IACHR notes that the petitioner indicated, in his March 2004 communication, that Mr. Montesinos had been acquitted and that the prosecuting authority had filed an appeal challenging that decision. As indicated in the section on admissibility, the IACHR has no additional information. D. Habeas corpus appeals 53. On September 10, 1996 the alleged victim filed a habeas corpus appeal with the Mayor of the Metropolitan District of Quito, alleging that his arrest had been illegal inasmuch as he was arrested without a warrant. He indicated that he had not been informed of the reasons for his arrest and that he had been beaten and forced to make a statement without his attorney present. The alleged victim added that he had been detained for more than 50 months, which is unreasonable.44 54. The Mayor ruled the appeal inadmissible six days later, stating that Mr. Montesinos was being prosecuted in three criminal proceedings.45 55. On October 30, 1996, after receiving an appeal [of the above decision], the Constitutional Rights Court upheld the habeas corpus appeal. The Court considered that the “periods and timeframes that procedural laws” stipulate for issuing judgments in the cases being prosecuted against Mr. Montesinos “had been overly and unwarrantedly exceeded” and ordered the Director of Men’s Social Rehabilitation Center No. 1 in Quito to immediately release Mr. Montesinos.46 As to the allegations of torture and cruel or inhuman treatment and the application of the Law on Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances, the Court chose to refrain from taking a position because Mr. Montesinos had not presented “evidence in this regard.”47 56. The case file contains a newspaper article that indicates that Mr. Montesinos filed a complaint for contempt in mid-November 1996 against the Director of the prison he was being held at because of the Director’s failure to comply with the October 1996 judgment ordering Mr. Montesinos’ release. The article notes that the Chief Judge of the Court warned the Director that he would be removed from his position if he failed to release Mr. Montesinos.48 57. On April 14, 1998 the petitioner filed a second habeas corpus appeal with the Mayor of the Metropolitan District of Quito on behalf of Mr. Montesinos. He held that the alleged victim had been in pretrial detention for nearly six years without any final decision, as of that time, in the criminal prosecutions against 42 Article 78. Punishment of front operations and straw men. Anyone who lends his name or the name of the company of which he is a part for the purpose of acquiring goods by using resources that are derived from offenses punishable under this law shall be punished by an ordinary maximum prison term of 8 to 12 years and a fine of 40 to 6,000 times the prevailing minimum wage. If such offense is committed via the organization of a group conspiring to prepare, facilitate, or ensure outcomes or impunity, the punishment shall be 8 to 12 years in prison and a fine of 40 to 6,000 times the prevailing minimum wage. 43 Official Letter No. 2078-CSJQ – 96 issued in Quito on November 25, 1996 by the Chief Judge of the Superior Court of Justice of Quito, Dr. Nelson Alemida García, in response to the IACHR request for more information on the case. 44 Resolution 182-96-CP, issued by the Constitutional Rights Court in the framework of Case No. 45/96-TC. 45 Resolution 182-96-CP, issued by the Constitutional Rights Court in the framework of Case No. 45/96-TC. 46 Resolution 182-96-CP, issued by the Constitutional Rights Court in the framework of Case No. 45/96-TC. 47 Resolution 182-96-CP, issued by the Constitutional Rights Court in the framework of Case No. 45/96-TC. 48 “DDHH El TC pide la excarcelación. Montesinos: su libertad en debate.” Article published on November 23, 1996 in the newspaper El Comercio. Unnamed author. 9