6.
On November 13, 2012, the alleged victims appointed a new representative, Mr. Marcelo
Dueñas Veloz. That information was conveyed to the State on November 19, with a request for its comments
and a reiteration of the request for the comments still pending. On February 5, 2013, the petitioner submitted
information. On February 22, 2013, the IACHR forwarded that information to the State and asked it for its
comments. On March 4, 2013, the State asked for a copy of the case file and an extension of the deadline for
responding to the request. On March 11, 2013, the IACHR sent a copy of the case file to the State, with a deadline
of one additional month in which to respond. The petitioner submitted information on April 29 and on July 24
and 26, 2013. On August 8, 2013, the State presented its comments, which were forwarded to the petitioner on
August 19. On August 15, 2013, the IACHR sent the petitioner’s communications to the State.
7.
The petitioner submitted comments on September 17 and 26, 2013, which were conveyed to
the State on September 27, 2013. Also on September 27, the IACHR sent the petitioner the State’s reply of
January 9, 2006, since the record failed to indicate that it had been forwarded at that time. The State sent
additional information on October 21, 2013, which was forwarded to the petitioner on October 23 and to which
the petitioner replied on November 1, 2013. That communication was forwarded to the State on November 14.
On February 28, 2014, the petitioner asked the IACHR to rule on the merits of the matter and, on March 18,
2014, the State presented comments, which were forwarded to petitioner on May 2, 2014. The petitioners
presented additional information on December 11, 2014.
III.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

A.

Position of the Petitioner

8.
The petitioner claims that Ecuador incurred in responsibility through criminal proceedings
brought against the alleged victims before the police courts without due guarantees, during which a custodial
order was issued by means of the retroactive enforcement of a provision of criminal law; and through the
subsequent failure to provide compensation for their criminal trial and firm arrest, the lack of independence
and impartiality on the part of the courts, and the failure to conclude the criminal trial for perversion of the
course of justice brought against the former President of the National Court of Police Justice, who initiated the
criminal proceedings.
9.
The petitioner further notes that the alleged victims are officers of the National Police of
Ecuador (hereinafter “PN”). Criminal proceedings were brought against them before the police courts following
the publication, by the State’s Comptroller General’s Office, of the “Partial Report on Indications of Criminal
Liability in the Special Examination of the National Police General Command’s Administrative and Financial
Operations. Commercial Enterprises: TECMADIESEL GRUP, COTRANSA, and DIJORMING” (hereinafter “the
report”).2
10.
According to the petitioner, the report from the Comptroller’s Office concluded that there
were grounds for opening a criminal investigation for embezzlement 3 and named the alleged victims as
participants; however, it contained no clear identification of their individual responsibilities and the alleged
victims were unable to defend themselves. The petitioner states that the alleged victims were informed of the
Comptroller’s report by means of a story in the press dated December 22, 2001.
11.
He claims that the report was conveyed by the Comptroller’s Office to the District Prosecutor
on December 19, 2001, and that the prosecution service launched an investigation and summoned the
individuals involved to give a statement. In addition, the President of the National Court of Police Justice
(hereinafter “CNJP”) requested a copy of the report, which was sent to him on January 28, 2002, thereby
“transferring the proceedings to the police courts.”

2
The purpose of the report was to examine the procurement and financial operations of the General Command of the National
Police over the period January 1, 1998, to June 30, 2000.
3

Offense criminalized in Articles 257.3 and Article 340 of the (common) Criminal Code.
2

Select target paragraph3