18. The Petitioner stated that the charges against him were dismissed, and consequently he had no other domestic remedies to exhaust. 19. The State’s claim that the other remedies to exhaust refer to the drug trafficking case against the Petitioner that was provisionally dismissed on September 3, 1997. However, this case has been under consideration since 1995, on which account the Commission concludes that there is unjustified delay in applying the exception set forth in Article 46(2)(c). The Commission observes that the State does not specify what remedies have already been exhausted, nor the body hearing the action. 20. The Commission observes that after the dismissal of the first action for (amparo) infringement of fundamental rights and freedoms filed by the Petitioner on July 1, 1996, the Petitioner proceeded to present a second action for amparo on October 2, 1997, since he was arrested despite the dismissal. In the appeal, the Petitioner informed the judicial authorities of Ecuador that “since his detention, as stated in the action, all his due process rights, both personal and constitutional, have been violated, which have resulted as a consequence of the unlawful detention, judgment in a forum without jurisdiction, and imprisonment, despite his innocence, for more than two years".4 The Ecuadorian judicial authorities did not respond at all to this appeal. 21. In Advisory Opinion Nº 8, requested by the Commission, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights stated that habeas corpus meets the objective of respect for the life and humane treatment of the individual, of preventing the disappearance of persons or preventing the individual from being held in unknown locations, and protects against torture and other forms of cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment. 22. Specifically, the Court underscored the difference between habeas corpusand an action for amparo: If the two remedies are examined together, it is possible to conclude that "amparo" comprises a whole series of remedies and that habeas corpus is but one of its components. An examination of the essential aspects of both guarantees, as embodied in the Convention and, in their different forms, in the legal systems of the States Parties, indicates that in some instances habeas corpus functions as an independent remedy. Here its primary purpose is to protect the personal freedom of those who are being detained or who have been threatened with detention. In other circumstances, however, habeas corpus is viewed either as the "amparo of freedom" or as an integral part of "amparo."5 23. In Suarez Rosero, a case also brought against Ecuador, the Court stated that the right of habeas corpus is fully protected under Ecuadorian law: …. a detained person must be guaranteed the right of habeas corpus at all times, even when he is being held in exceptional circumstances ofincommunicado detention established by law. That guarantee is doubly entrenched in the law in Ecuador. Article 286 of the Political Constitution provides that [a]ny person who believes that he is being unlawfully deprived of his liberty may seek the remedy of habeas corpus. He may exercise this right himself or through another person without the need for written mandate ... 4 Writ of amparo presented by the Petitioner to the President of the Superior Court of Guayaquil on October 2, 1997. Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Habeas Corpus in Emergency Situations (Arts. 27.2, 25.1 and 7.6 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion 8/87 of January 30, 1987, paragraph 34. The Commission would like to point out that Article 93 of the Constitution refers to habeas corpus as a safeguard on the legality of a detention which is presented to the mayor of the jurisdiction where the person is being held. Article 95 refers to amparo, an action which would “require measures to stop, prevent or immediately remedy the consequences of an illegitimate act or omission on the part of a public authority that violates or could violate any right protected by the Constitution or by an international treaty or convention currently in force…” Amparo is more inclusive as it safeguards the right to personal liberty and all other rights protected by the Constitution of Ecuador and the American Convention. 6 This refers to Article 28 of the old Constitution of Ecuador. It is Article 93 of the present Constitution. 5 4