I. INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE 1. The case submitted to the Court. On November 13, 2019, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) submitted to the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court, pursuant to Articles 51 and 61 of the American Convention, the case of Villarroel Merino and others against the Republic of Ecuador (hereinafter “the State” or “Ecuador”). According to the Commission, the case relates to the alleged unlawful and arbitrary detention of the officers of the National Police: Jorge Humberto Villarroel Merino (hereinafter also “Jorge Villarroel Merino” or “Mr. Villarroel Merino” or “Mr. Villarroel”), Mario Romel1 Cevallos Moreno (hereinafter also “Mario Cevallos Moreno” or “Mr. Cevallos Moreno” or “Mr. Cevallos”), Jorge Enrique Coloma Gaibor2 (hereinafter also “Jorge Coloma Gaibor” or “Mr. Coloma Gaibor” or “Mr. Coloma”), Fernando Marcelo López Ortiz (hereinafter also “Fernando López Ortiz” or “Mr. López Ortiz” or “Mr. López”), Leoncio Amílcar Ascázubi Albán (hereinafter also “Amílcar Ascázubi Albán” or “Mr. Ascázubi Albán” or “Mr. Ascázubi”) and Alfonso Patricio Vinueza3 Pánchez (hereinafter also “Patricio Vinueza Pánchez” or “Mr. Vinueza Pánchez” or “Mr. Vinueza”) (hereinafter also “the presumed victims”) in May 2003, first under the measure of detención en firme (a detention order issued in conjunction with a committal order to ensure the defendant’s presence at the trial) and then under pre-trial detention. The Commission also alleged that judicial guarantees had been violated in the proceedings instituted against the presumed victims because they did not have prior detailed information of the charges against them or time to prepare their defense. In addition, it alleged that there had been violations: (i) of the principle of independence and impartiality because the right to a competent authority was violated due to the numerous indications of the lack of competence of the person acting as the president of the court; (ii) the presumed victims were not allowed to appeal the ruling before a higher court, and (iii) the duration of the proceedings was unreasonable. 2. Procedure before the Commission. The procedure before the Commission was as follows: a. Petition. The initial petition was lodged before the Commission on July 15, 2003, by María Paula Romo. b. Admissibility Report. On January 29, 2015, the Commission adopted Admissibility Report No. 6/15 and made itself available in order to reach a friendly settlement. c. Merits Report. On October 5, 2018, the Commission issued Merits Report No. 113/184 (hereinafter “the Merits Report”) under Article 50 of the Convention in which it reached a series of conclusions,5 and made several recommendations to the State. d. Notification to the State. The Merits Report was notified to the State on November 13, 2018. After the Commission had granted the State three extensions of either three months or one month, the State failed to present information on compliance with the recommendations In the different documents presented, the second name of Mario Cevallos Moreno appears, indistinctly, as “Rommel” or “Romel.” For the purposes of this judgment, the Court will use the spelling “Romel.” 1 In the different documents presented, the second last name of Jorge Coloma appears, indistinctly, as “Gaibor” or “Gaybor.” For the purposes of this judgment, the Court will use the spelling “Gaibor.” 2 In the different documents presented, the first last name of Alfonso Patricio appears, indistinctly, as “Vinueza” or “Vinuesa.” For the purposes of this judgment, the Court will use the spelling “Vinueza.” 3 4 Merits Report No. 113/18, Jorge Villarroel and Others v. Ecuador, of October 5, 2018 (merits file, fs. 5 to 30). The Commission concluded that the State of Ecuador was responsible for the violation of the rights established in Articles 7(1), 7(2), 7(3), 7(5), 7(6) (personal liberty), 8(1), 8(2), 8(2)(b), 8(2)(c), 8(2)(h) (judicial guarantees), 24 (principle of equality and non-discrimination) and 25(1) (judicial protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, to the detriment of Jorge Humberto Villarroel Merino, Mario Romel Cevallos Moreno, Jorge Coloma Gaibor, Fernando López Ortiz, Amílcar Ascázubi Albán and Patricio Vinueza Pánchez. In addition, the Commission concluded that the State was not responsible for the violation of Article 9 of the American Convention. 5 3