2 III. THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS A. The petitioners’ position 7. The petitioners note that Gonzalo Orlando Cortéz Espinoza served for 15 years as a member of the Ecuadorian Armed Forces until he reached the rank of Second Sergeant, working as a technical specialist on electronic equipment for communication and terrestrial navigation for the Air Force, with unblemished conduct. They indicate that for personal reasons, on August 31, 1993, the alleged victim filed a voluntary request to leave the Air Force; in response, he was discharged on February 28, 1994. 8. They allege that on March 19, 1997, the Military Criminal Judge for the First Aerial Zone instituted criminal proceedings and ordered that an investigation be opened against the alleged victim on accusations of having stolen electronic equipment that was property of the Air Force, committed in January 1997, and ordered his provisional detention. In this respect, the petitioners allege that said order was unfounded and illegal in the Ecuadorian legal system, for a military judge does not have jurisdiction to order the detention of a civilian, violating the right to a judge with jurisdiction. 9. They indicate that the alleged victim was detained, without the constitutionallyrequired arrest warrant, on July 11, 1997, by agents of the Air Force Intelligence Service, and was taken to the air base. They indicate that the arrest warrant was issued five days later, on July 16, 1997, by the Military Judge of the First Aerial Zone, who ordered his detention to carry out certain investigative steps, and then his transfer to the Pichincha Provisional Detention Center in view of his status as a civilian, which never happened. 10. They argue that the alleged victim was brought before the judge on July 30, 1997, 19 days after his detention, when they received his statement; accordingly, there was a violation of Article 7(5) of the Convention. In addition, they argue that the alleged victim was held incommunicado for 15 days. In this respect, they allege that Gonzalo Orlando Cortéz Espinoza should have been brought before the judge immediately after his detention. They indicate that in Ecuadorian legislation, detention without judicial order is illegal, and that detainees must give their statement to a judge within 24 hours of their detention, which may be extended for up to 24 hours more. They indicate that the alleged victim was detained at the Military District of the “Mariscal Sucre” Air Base for five months and one week, and that he was released on December 18, 1997. 11. The petitioners allege that during his detention the alleged victim was subjected to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. In this respect, they allege that in addition to the incommunicado detention, at night the guards would kick the door of the alleged victim’s cell, and that he was subjected to verbal attacks to instill fear in him. They also argue that the alleged victim was forced to pay for his food, and that it was served to him having already been chewed and spit out. 12. In response to the State’s argument that a writ of habeas corpus should have been filed (see infra III B.), the petitioners answer that given that the alleged victim was held incommunicado, he could not file such a writ, either personally or by means of another person, since his family members or attorney were not aware of what was happening; and that had he filed it subsequently it would have lacked the characteristics of timeliness and effectiveness. 13. In response to the State’s arguments that it was not apparent that the person being tried was a civilian, and that he was the one who asked to continue under the military jurisdiction, so as to safeguard his personal integrity (see infra III B.), the petitioners answer that his status as a

Select target paragraph3