49. Finally, the petitioner alleged that after the facts of the case the police had "attempted to spread the rumor that the deaths of Walter and Mercedes had occurred as a result of an exchange of bullets between them and that Walter and Mercedes were delinquents." He added that they had also claimed that Mr. Huacón had been drunk.42 The IACHR notes that the State did not contest that information. Nor did it provide any additional information on the subject. D. The civil proceedings 50. On April 13, 2000, the petitioner filed two suits for moral injury damages against the Ecuadorian State as a result of the harm done to Walter Huacón Baidal, Mercedes Salazar Cueva, and their respective next-of-kin. The petitioner added that the judicial fee would apply once the amount involved in the proceedings by the competent authority had been determined.43 51. Regarding the facts surrounding the civil proceedings involving Mercedes Salazar and her next-ofkin, on June 9, 2000, the Seventh Civil Court Judge of Guayaquil admitted the case for trial in the ordinary jurisdiction.44 52. On November 7 of the same year, the Office of the Procurator-General of the Ecuadorian State answered the complaint and argued that the plaintiff was "not entitled to file this complaint" because "the perpetrators, accomplices, and accessories after the fact had not been identified." It added: "Nor has the family tie between Mercedes Salazar and the petitioners been proven."45 53. The following day, the Procurator's Office expanded its reply to the suit and argued also the objection that "the judge was not competent" to hear matters in that area. It also reiterated that no complaint can be filed if no conviction has been handed down.46 54. On December 12, 2000, the Procurator's Office again added to its reply, stating that the case could not proceed because of failure to pay the "judicial fee corresponding to the amount of the claim in the case which is FOUR MILLION UNITED STATES DOLLARS (...) meaning that 1% thereof should have been deposited, i.e. FORTY THOUSAND UNITED STATES DOLLARS." The Office again reiterated the objection of incompetence in respect of subject matter and area and because no conviction had been handed down.47 55. On April 6, 2001, the petitioner asked the judge to reject the objections argued by the Procurator's Office and to set a date for a settlement hearing.48 On February 4, 2002, the Procurator's Office replied, arguing that failure to pay the judicial fee could trigger a disciplinary penalty, such as destitution of the attorney by the National Judicial Council.49 56. On May 8, 2002, the Seventh Civil Court Judge in Guayaquil rejected the dismissal requested by the State Procurator-General as "groundless."50 The petitioner stated that subsequently the judge requested payment of the respective judicial fee in the amount of forty thousand US dollars based on a regulation of the year 2000 establishing payment of one percent of the total amount of damages. The petitioner explained that the regulation that should have been applied was that of 1999, which established that the fee due was one minimum living wage, so that he had requested a revocation of the order to pay the above-mentioned amount. 51 On October 1, 2002, the Seventh Judge denied the request to revoke the initial interlocutory Brief by the petitioner of April 23, 2004: written document from the petitioner received on July 8, 2004. Action for damages by Walter Huacón's family filed with the Civil Court Judge in Guayas on April 13, 2000. Attachment to the petitioner's initial petition on October 15, 2002; Action for damages by Mercedes Salazar's family filed with the Civil Court Judge in Guayas on April 13, 2000. Attached to the petitioner's initial petition of October 15, 2002. 44 Resolution of the Seventh Civil Law Court of June 9, 2000. Attached to the petitioner's initial petition of October 15, 2002. 45 Reply to the complaint by the Guayas District Representative of the State Procurator-General's Office, November 7, 2000. Attached to the petitioner's initial petition of October 15, 2002. 46 Addition to the reply to the complaint by the Guayas District Representative of the State Procurator-General's Office, November 8, 2000. Attached to the petitioner's initial petition of October 15, 2002. 47 Addition to the reply to the complaint by the Guayas District Representative of the State Procurator-General's Office, December 12, 2000. Attached to the petitioner's initial petition of October 15, 2002. 48 Petitioners' reply, April 6, 2001. Attached to the petitioner's initial petition of October 15, 2002. 49 Reply to the complaint by the Guayas District Representative of the State Procurator-General's Office, February 4, 2002. Attached to the petitioner's initial petition of October 15, 2002. 50 Interlocutory order of the Seventh Civil Court Judge of May 8, 2002. Attached to the petitioner's initial petition of October 15, 2002. 51 Petitioners' reply, August 28, 2002. Attached to the petitioner's initial petition of October 15, 2002. 42 43 7