a transaction that never occurred. After recognizing the individual, the Petitioner explained why that person visited his home. The individual, Eduardo Edison García, made a statement along the same lines as the one made by the Petitioner, but, according to the Petitioner, the last part of the statement was falsified by the police to frame him. Interpol accused the Petitioner of having sold 50 grams of cocaine hydrochlorate to Eduardo García. In December 1995, Eduardo García denied the police report, but this statement was not included in the file. In March 1996, Eduardo García made another statement that the Petitioner was innocent. That statement was placed in the file. 7. In July 1996, the Petitioner filed an action for enforcement of his right to liberty before the President of the Superior Court. This measure was rejected by the Court, since the President of the Court found evidence in the action that suggested an infringement of the law and also liability of the Petitioner, which suffice under Article 177 of Ecuador’s Criminal Procedure Code to hold a person in custody. 8. Five months after his arrest, the Petitioner was offered his freedom in exchange for a new statement in which he was to admit his involvement in the “Camarón” case. The Petitioner received death threats in attempts to force him to change his statement. He was handcuffed and taken to a room where he received blows about the body and face. His lower limbs were burned with cigarettes and red hot metal bars. Ten days later, the blows and burns were repeated, this time resulting in his ribs being broken. On other occasions, he was dealt blows with baseball bats, and his head was submerged in a barrel of water. He never received medical attention to treat his wounds. Finally, the torture sessions were suspended through the intervention of the Embassy of France. In total, the Petitioner counted seven sessions. Despite the physical pressure, the Petitioner never admitted participation in the offenses of which he was accused. 9. On September 3, 1997, the request for dismissal was accepted, but the Petitioner was not immediately freed since the Public Prosecution Service had to send its verdict “for consultation” to the Superior Court, in accordance with Articles 398 to 403 of Act 134 of the Ecuadorian Code of Criminal Procedure.1 Under normal circumstances, this consultation should be done within 15 days, but, in this case, it required more than the established period. Faced with this delay, the Petitioner filed an action for amparo on October 2, 1997, which was dismissed without any explanation whatever, as the Petitioner alleged. Nonetheless, in January 1998, the judges decided to sign the consultation by finding, as stated in the decision, that the accusations against the Petitioner were completely unrelated to the criminal activity reviewed in the action. They also decided to transmit an order of release. On January 21, 1998, the Petitioner was finally released. Following his release, he returned to France and retains a lawyer in Ecuador, Dr. Colón Delgado Cedeño, who is responsible for continuing to handle the proceedings for the Petitioner’s matter. 10. The Petitioner attaches the following documents as evidence of his allegations of torture: a. Press articles from France and Ecuador; b. French medical reports that determine thePetitioner,caused by injuries suffered in prison. the physical state of 11. The Petitioner also alleges that when he was held in the penitentiary, he had to pay 20,000 sucres (US$ 90) to a prison guard to be able to obtain a cell. According to the Petitioner, this was a common practice in order to sleep “safely.” Until he agreed to that payment, he remained in the corridors of the pavilion, sleeping on a bench. 1 Art. 398 – The criminal court judges are required to take up for consultation to the respective Superior Court, the decisions to dismiss (...) Art. 399. Whenever the judge in the same proceedings issues a decision to dismiss in favor of one or more of the accused (...) a copy of the proceedings will be transmitted to the Superior Court to resolve the consultation and the original will go to the Criminal Court which will continue the case. Art 401 – The Superior Court will decide the consultation on the merits of what has been presented within 15 days from the receipt of the proceedings and its resolution will be carried out. 2