the judge a quo and ordered the accused’ preventive detention. On January 5, 2004, the Judicial Police were allegedly ordered to take the accused into preventive custody. The petitioners contend that to this day, that arrest warrant has never been carried out. 15. They contend that on October 13, 2003, the alleged victim’s mother filed a specific charge against the assistant principal during the criminal case, accusing him of rape and instigation to commit suicide. The petitioners allege, however, that the order binding the accused over for trial made no reference to the mother’s accusation, and focused instead only on the crime of sexual harassment, thereby minimizing the severity of what had happened. The alleged victim’s mother filed a petition for recusal against the Twentieth Criminal Judge of Guayas on November 11, 2003; and on May 4, 2004 that judge was finally removed from the criminal case. 16. The petitioners state that on August 23, 2004, definitive orders for trial and arrest were issued against the accused. They assert that to date, the assistant principal has not been made to appear for trial and there is no evidence that the accused has paid the bond necessary for him to remain free during the proceedings. They further allege that the order for trial was suspended until he was taken into custody or had voluntarily surrendered. On September 22, 2004, the accused filed appeals and petitions seeking nullification of the order binding him over for trial, on the grounds that it was in violation of the procedure provided by law. On September 2, 2005, the Superior Court dismissed the appeal –thereby confirming the order binding the accused over for trial. The Superior Court also amended the indictment on the grounds that the criminal offense was aggravated statutory rape, not sexual harassment. 17. As for the administrative proceeding, the petitioners observe that the alleged victim’s mother filed a complaint with the Office of the Regional Under Secretary for Education, accusing the assistant principal of sexual harassment. They contend that on January 21, 2003, the case was referred to the Guayas Office of the Provincial Director of Education, which issued a report on January 23, 2003 in which it concludes that the alleged victim was in love with the assistant principal, but there was no way of knowing whether 6