II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION Precautionary Measures 6. This petition was received by the IACHR on January 3, 2002, together with a request for precautionary measures. On February 11, 2002, the Commission granted the precautionary measures and requested that the State take the necessary measures to protect the life and safety of the petitioner and his family, and to investigate the alleged acts “in order to establish the facts of the situation and take the appropriate measures.”1 In view of these measures, the State forwarded information on compliance with the measures on March 1, 2002. For his part, the petitioner sent information to the Commission on March 14, April 15 and 22, May 16 and 28, and June 18 and 21, 2002, the pertinent parts of which were promptly forwarded to the State on April 1, May 9, and July 22, 2002. After the petitioner and his relatives left the country for the United Kingdom in June 2002 under the protection of the measures and their request for asylum, the precautionary measures were set aside. Processing of the Petition 7. The Commission received additional information from the petitioner on October 3, 2002, June 1, 2004, and August 4, 2005. In addition, on June 22, 2005, the Commission received a new brief from the petitioner. On October 7, 2005, the IACHR asked the petitioner to present specific documents needed to complete the initial study of the petition, which the petitioner submitted on December 6, 2005. The petitioner also sent the IACHR a brief, received on February 25 and March 4, 2008, adding new legal representatives2 and setting forth legal arguments. 8. On March 10, 2010, the IACHR decided to begin processing the petition, and on April 15, 2010, it forwarded the pertinent parts of the petition to the State, requesting that it submit a reply within two months. On June 1, 2010, the State sent a communication to the Commission stating that the documentation it had received was illegible, and it asked for the petition to be sent again and for a new deadline for the submission of its observations. On November 12, 2010, the State submitted its reply to the petition, the pertinent parts of which were forwarded to the petitioner on December 8, 2010. On January 6, 2011, the petitioner requested an extension of the deadline for the submission of his observations, and on February 16, 2011, he presented additional observations that were forwarded to the State on March 22, 2011. For its part, the State requested an extension on April 28, 2011, and submitted additional observations on June 20, 2011, which were forwarded to the petitioner on June 28, 2011. On July 14, 2011, the petitioner presented new observations, and on October 13, 2011, the State presented its reply. Both communications were duly forwarded to the respective party. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. Position of the Petitioner 9. In the initial petition submitted to the IACHR on January 3, 2002, the petitioner stated that on November 8, 2001, while he was working as the Naval and Military Defense Attaché to the Embassy of Ecuador in London, he sent a communication to the then-Ecuadorian Ambassador to the United Kingdom, denouncing alleged acts of corruption in the administration of public resources by the Ecuadorian Armed Forces, which he detected in the performance of his duties. He sent the communication “in order for the competent authorities in Ecuador to be notified.” The petitioner explained that, in the discharge of his duties, “he witnessed first-hand” all of the aspects of the irregular negotiation of insurance contracts for aircraft belonging to the Ecuadorian Armed Forces, and in the leasing of the headquarters of the Office of the Naval Attaché in London. He stated that, because these were serious acts of which he had direct and immediate knowledge by virtue of his position, and because the alleged perpetrators were his superiors in the Armed Forces, he reported these acts to the 1 IACHR. 2002 Annual Report. Chapter III. The Petition System and Individual Cases (C. Precautionary measures granted by the Commission during 2002), OEA/Ser.L/V/II.117 Doc. 1 rev. 1. March 7, 2003, para. 51. 2 In a brief received by the petitioner on February 25 and March 4, 2008, attorneys Farith Simon and Alejandro Ponce of the Legal Clinics of the University of San Francisco in Quito were added to this case as co-petitioners.

Select target paragraph3