12. The petitioner states that the report spoke of the possible commission of the crime of minor embezzlement, which is punishable by a prison term of between 1 and 5 years; under the PN’s Criminal Code, however, that crime is punishable by special minor-level prison for a period of between 3 and 6 years: thus, within the police justice system, the possible punishment faced by the alleged victims was harsher. On March 19, 2002, the petitioner reports, the President of the CNJP issued the trial commencement deed and, on the following November 26, concluded that preliminary stage of the proceedings. On January 19, 2003, the Police Prosecutor requested that the preliminary stage be reopened; that request was denied and the Police Prosecutor issued his ruling on April 9, 2003. In that ruling, the prosecutor refrained from formalizing any charges, with the exception of two individuals, one of whom was Mr. Patricio Vinueza. 13. The petitioner adds that there was a change in the CNJP’s composition and, on May 26, 2003, the new President issued a “grounded deed” ordering the “firm arrest” and seizure of the assets of eight accused individuals, including the alleged victims. He claims that the President based this decision on a mix of articles from police codes and common criminal codes. 14. The petitioner states that, following the arrest of the alleged victims, 4 an amparo remedy for their release was filed, claiming that the mechanism of “firm arrest” did not exist under police law and stating that the President of the CNJP had applied an article that came into force following the commencement of the proceedings.5 He adds that on July 3, 2003, the release amparo was denied and that the alleged victims were kept under arrest in spite of a resolution of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated January 23, 2004, ruling that “firm arrest” was not applicable to people whose trials had begun before the new code came into force. 15. The petitioner contends that on January 27, 2004, the President of the CNJP took over the proceedings and overruled the “firm arrest.” In addition, he states that alongside the relief amparo, the alleged victims filed a remedy for annulment and an appeal remedy 6 with the CNJP on June 13, 2003. Both were dismissed: the remedy for annulment on July 31, 2003, and the appeal remedy on November 11 of that year. 16. He reports that once the trial commencement deed was confirmed, they requested the recusal of the President of the CNJP. That motion was rejected on the grounds that his recusal was impossible. An application for revocation and a demand for the President of the CNJP to decline competence were also dismissed. In addition, on January 7, 2004, they filed a request for the Interior Ministry to oversee the proceedings, invoking the alleged violations committed against them. 17. At the same time, the petitioner reports that on July 3, 2003, he filed suit against the President of the CNJP for perverting the course of justice. He states that the prosecutorial inquiry was opened, the proceedings were referred to the President of the Quito Court Superior, a trial was begun, and the preventive custody of the former President of the CNJP was ordered; however, he had fled to await the triggering of statutory limitations in the proceedings brought against him. 18. According to the petitioner, with the confirmation of the grounded deed, the charges against Mr. Cevallos were temporarily suspended and Mr. Villarroel’s status in the proceedings was amended from perpetrator to suspected accomplice. Later, on September 6, 2004, the CNJP requested that Police Prosecutor present his final ruling, to which the Prosecutor replied on October 8 indicating that there was insufficient evidence for charges to be brought. 19. The petitioner contends that even so, a conviction was handed down on January 10, 2005. Messrs. Vinueza, Coloma, and Villarroel were convicted of the crime set out in Article 222, sections 1, 3, 4, and 4 The grounded deed ordered the firm arrest, as “perpetrators,” of Messrs. Villarroel, Cevallos Moreno, Coloma Gaibor, Trujillo Soto, and Vinueza Panchez; and, as “accomplices,” of Messrs. López Ortiz, Azcásubi Albán, and Estrella Borja. 5 The petitioner reports that the first transitory article of the common Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended, states that proceedings commenced prior to the date of its date of entry into force shall continue under the previous rules, except when an individual would benefit from the new provisions. 6 In the appeal remedy presented by the petitioner, the CNJP was also asked to enforce Article 160 of the National Police Code of Criminal Procedure, which orders the definitive dismissal of proceedings when the prosecutor issues a final ruling for nonindictment. 3