REPORT 90/00* CASE 12.124 DANIEL DAVID TIBI ECUADOR October 5, 2000 I. SUMMARY 1. On July 15,1998, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission”) received a complaint in which it was alleged that the Republic of Ecuador (hereinafter “the State” or “Ecuador”) had violated the rights of Mr. Daniel David Tibi, a French national residing in Ecuador and a dealer in precious stones and art objects, which rights are protected in the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention”). The Petitioner is represented before the Commission by Attorney Arthur Vercken, also a French national. He alleges violation of Articles 5 (humane treatment); 7 (personal liberty); 8 (fair trial); 10 (compensation); 11 (privacy); 21 (property); and 25 (judicial protection), all in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention. 2. The Petitioner alleges that, on September 27, 1995, he was arrested by the police in Quito while driving his car in a city street. The Petitioner alleges that he was taken, unjustly, by airplane, to the city of Guayaquil, some 600 km. from Quito, where he was placed in a cell and illegally held for 28 months. The Petitioner claims that he is entirely innocent of the charges made against him and that he was subjected to torture on seven occasions, beating, burning, and suffocation aimed at obtaining a confession that he had participated in a drug trafficking incident. 3. The Commission concludes, in this report, that the case meets the requirements set forth in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. The Commission therefore decides to declare the case admissible, to notify the parties of its decision, and to continue to analyze, on the merits, the allegations of violations of Articles 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 21, and 25 of the American Convention. At the same time, it places itself at the disposal of the parties for initiation of a friendly settlement process and decides to publish this report. II. PROCESSING BEFORE THE COMMISSION 4. On July 15, 1998, the complaint on this matter was received by the Commission. On May 7, 1999, notes were sent to the State and the Petitioner and the case was opened. On August 12, 1999, the State replied to the request for information; on September 27, it transmitted additional information. On October 8, 1999, the information was sent to the Petitioner. On April 7, 2000, the Petitioner transmitted further information; on June 20, this was sent to the State. As of this date, October 5, 2000, the State has not submitted its observations. III. THE POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. Position of the Petitioner 5. On September 27, 1995, the Petitioner was arrested in Quito by two police officers who identified themselves as Interpol agents, and said that they worked in immigration control. Approximately two hours following his arrest, the Petitioner was informed as a mere formality that he would see a trial judge in Guayaquil, with the return trip scheduled for that same day at night. The trip was made by plane. 6. On arriving in Guayaquil, he was handcuffed on leaving the plane and was transferred to the model headquarters of Interpol, where he was placed in a cell until the following day when he was removed from the cell and taken before the prosecutor, without a judge being present. In the prosecutor’s office, he was shown an album of photographs of persons implicated in the operation against the drug trafficker called “Camarón,” and, in particular, the picture of someone the Petitioner had met on two occasions to negotiate the exportation of leather bags, 1

Select target paragraph3