I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE 1. The case submitted to the Court. On July 25, 2019, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court the case of Grijalva Bueno against the Republic of Ecuador (hereinafter “Ecuador” or “the State”). The Commission indicated that the case concerns the arbitrary dismissal of Vicente Aníbal Grijalva Bueno (hereinafter “Mr. Grijalva Bueno” or “Mr. Grijalva” or “the alleged victim”) from his position as Port Captain of the Ecuadorian Navy in 1993, as well as the failure to ensure judicial guarantees in the disciplinary process of dismissal and the military criminal proceedings brought against him for “crimes against the military faith.” In relation to the dismissal process, the Commission considered that “a military agent who had been denounced by the victim months earlier for having committed serious human rights violations was involved in preparing the reports that were used to dismiss Mr. Grijalva [Bueno],” which affected the guarantee of impartiality. The Commission also determined that Mr. Grijalva Bueno did not have an opportunity to know, participate and defend himself in the disciplinary process that resulted in his dismissal. With regard to the military criminal proceedings for “crimes against military faith,” the Commission considered that the decision of the court that convicted him was exclusively based on a report that contained various irregularities, including the use of torture and coercion against various persons who testified against Mr. Grijalva. The Commission argued that the court had reversed the burden of proof by placing the onus on Mr. Grijalva to prove his innocence, and that the seven years and two months that elapsed from the start of the investigation to the confirmation of the sentence constituted an excessive period of time. It also concluded that the State violated the right to judicial protection inasmuch as the judgment ordering Mr. Grijalva’s reinstatement in the Navy was not executed. Finally, it argued that Mr. Grijalva’s dismissal and the criminal proceedings initiated against him constituted acts of retaliation in violation of his right to freedom of expression. 2. Procedure before the Commission. The procedure before the Commission was as follows: a) Petition. On September 13, 2001, the Commission received the initial petition.1 b) Report on Admissibility. On October 10, 2002, the Inter-American Commission adopted Admissibility Report No. 68/02 (hereinafter “Admissibility Report”). c) Merits Report. On December 7, 2018, the Commission adopted Merits Report No. 152/18 (hereinafter “Merits Report” or “the Report”), in which reached a series of conclusions2 and made various recommendations to the State. 3. Notification to the State. On January 25, 2019, the Inter-American Commission notified the Merits Report to the State, grating it a period of two months to report on its compliance with the recommendations. The Commission indicated that it granted The petition was presented by Francisco López Bermúdez of the Andean Democratic Audit. The Commission concluded that the State is responsible for the violation of judicial guarantees, freedom of expression and judicial protection, established in Articles 8(1), 8(2)(b), (c), (f), 13(1) and 25(1) and 25(2) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations to respect and guarantee rights contained in Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Vicente Aníbal Grijalva Bueno. 1 2 3