multitude of allegedly unlawful acts, but rather for only one such act. The petitioner stated that his representatives in court appealed the decision before the Constitutional Court. 15. The petitioner stated that, in light of the attacks, the ongoing telephone threats, the inadequate police protection received and his mistrust in the existence of a “real justice proceeding,” he was forced to request asylum from the authorities of the United Kingdom and leave the country with his wife on June 10, 2002. He explained that the appeal in his amparo case was decided on August 28, 2002, once he was in the United Kingdom. He stated that although the Constitutional Court ruled to set aside the arrest orders imposed against him, “there was no acknowledgement or declaration of any of the human rights violations” alleged. In particular, the Court failed to take account of the infringement of his rights as a result of his removal from the position of Naval and Military Defense Attaché to the Embassy of Ecuador in London, and his exclusion from the promotion course, in retaliation for having exposed acts of corruption within the Armed Forces. The Court also did not order any type of reparation. The petitioner underscored that the Constitutional Court had the authority to put a stop to the violation of all of his rights and to order reparation. In the petitioner’s opinion, “The judgment was ineffective because it in no way ordered the restitution of all his violated rights.” 16. The petitioner affirmed that on July 14, 2003, the government of the United Kingdom granted his asylum request. He also cited a number of additional proceedings brought against him subsequent to his departure from Ecuador. He also stated that he filed a case before the Ecuadorian Navy to set aside the orders that forced him to resign from his post. He alleged that he was never served notice of the decisions issued for those purposes, nor was he allowed to exercise his right to a defense. According to the petition, on February 18, 2003, he requested that the decisions ordering said measure be set aside, and in March 2003 his request was denied. In addition, the petitioner stated that on February 8, 2003, he filed an administrative claim before the Executive Branch, asking the President of the Republic to order compensation for the unlawful arrest orders issued against him. This request was denied in an official letter dated April 22, 2003, which stated that the petitioner needed to bring a new civil action before the courts. 17. Similarly, the petitioner made reference to the court martial for the alleged alteration of documents brought against him on December 26, 2002, based on a complaint filed by the then-Minister of Defense. With respect to that proceeding, the petitioner asserted that he was not allowed to exercise his right to a defense, and that he has no knowledge of the current procedural status of the case. The petitioner stated that, for purposes of intimidating him, and in retaliation for his whistle-blowing, another administrative proceeding was brought against him on March 17, 2003, alleging the mismanagement of financial resources in the discharge of his duties as Naval Attaché to the Embassy of Ecuador in the United Kingdom. In addition, on February 5, 2004, the Manager of District I of the Ecuadorian Customs Corporation issued a tax correction decision against him, in connection with the import of a vehicle used during his tenure at that post. The petitioner reiterated that all of these acts were designed to intimidate him and perpetuate his forced exile. 18. Finally, the petitioner stated that he had appeared before the Government Accountability Office and before the Civic Anti-Corruption Commission to give an accounting of his corruption complaint. The Commission issued a report acknowledging some of the acts of corruption reported by the petitioner and opened investigations with a view to prosecuting the accused service members before the Court of Military Justice. The petitioner underscored that, notwithstanding the investigations, these cases were dismissed on December 17, 2003 without any results having been obtained. 19. In view of the above, the petitioner affirmed generally that the State is responsible for the violation of Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21, 24, and 25 of the American Convention, to his detriment and to the detriment of his wife Ligia Rocío Alarcón Gallegos, his children Michelle Rocío Viteri Alarcón and Rogelio Sebastián Viteri Alarcón, and his mother-in-law Rosa María Humbertina Gallegos Pozo, all of whom were granted asylum in England, as well as to the detriment of his sister-in-law and legal representative in Ecuador, Ana Lucía Alarcón Gallegos, and her family, namely her husband Luis Naveda and their children David Naveda Alarcón and Diana Naveda Alarcón. The petitioner is also of the opinion that the State has failed to comply with the general obligations contained in Articles 1.1 and 2 of the American Convention. He additionally invokes the Inter-American Convention against Corruption, to which Ecuador is a party, and which requires it, among other things, to create “Systems for registering the income, assets and liabilities of persons who perform