higher civil authority which was not under the orders of those implicated in the acts alleged—in this case, the
head of the diplomatic mission where he was employed.
10.
The petitioner stated that on November 26, 2001 he received notice to appear before the Joint
Command of the Armed Forces in Quito within 72 hours, to explain the report he had submitted to the
Ambassador. The petitioner nevertheless alleged that, when he appeared before the Command on December 3,
2001, he was not heard and was only informed that he would be called before a Disciplinary Board. The
petitioner alleged that on December 5, 2001, he was detained and brought before a Disciplinary Board that
proceeded to sentence him to 15 days of strict arrest, on charges of (i) publishing documents against military
authorities, (ii) making false reports, (iii) insulting a superior, verbally or in writing, and (iv) violating, through
negligence or through orders, provisions contained in documents of the Armed Forces. The petitioner alleged
that during his confinement he was kept “in precarious conditions, denied food, unable to wash, and unable to
sleep uninterrupted.
11.
He underscored that while he was detained he filed a writ of habeas corpus before the Mayor
of the Municipal District of Quito. However, it was denied on December 12, 2001, because he was being held
under disciplinary arrest. The petitioner explained that after he was released, on December 22, 2001, he
returned to London, where he alleges that he was prevented from resuming his duties and his salary was
suspended. He further stated that on December 27 he was given two hours to clean out his office, leave his post,
and return to Ecuador. On January 27, 2002, the petitioner returned to Quito with his wife, Ligia Rocío Alarcón
Gallegos. He stated that he was then ordered to go to Guayaquil. The petitioner alleged that, once he was in
Guayaquil, on January 29, 2002, a second arrest order was issued against him, and he was again held in
“atrocious conditions,” in a cell that was “unventilated, hot, and infested with cockroaches,” and that he was not
given food. The petitioner added that, after his release on February 2, 2002, he was assigned to work in an
administrative office that was not part of the branch of the Armed Forces to which he belonged, that the work
was below his rank, and that he had been isolated in a specific area of the barracks. He stated that during his
stay there, shots were fired during the night outside his window.
12.
He added that on February 14, 2002, he was subjected to 5 days of strict arrest, accused of
insulting the chiefs of the Armed Forces and the Minister of Defense. He was again held in poor conditions, and
on April 8, 2002, he was subjected to a fourth period of strict arrest for 3 days, this time for insulting the Armed
Forces and using the press for that purpose. The petitioner stated that he received threatening and insulting
phone calls at his residence, both in Ecuador and in London, and asserted that he had received information
from a Navy officer that his phones had been tapped. In addition, he described several incidents involving
attacks and harassment against him and his family. He also cited constant threats to his sister-in-law and legal
representative in Ecuador, Ana Lucía Alarcón Gallegos, and mentioned that he had received packages with no
sender’s name at his workplace that were meant to intimidate him.
13.
The information provided indicates that the alleged victim informed the commanding general
of the Joint Command of the Armed Forces of the threats, persecution, and surveillance that he and his family
had experienced, and asked that an end be put to “the persecution to which [he] had been subjected.” He
maintains that he never received a response to these requests, which demonstrates that “he did not have the
option of a remedy to safeguard his rights” within the military institution. He explained that although Article
25 of the Regulations of Military Discipline provided for “a remedy that the serviceman can use to file requests,
he must do so before his superior or, in that person’s absence, the next highest-ranking officer.” Furthermore,
that article made it a serious infraction “to lodge petitions or complaints using impolite terms or criticizing the
attitude of one’s superior.”
14.
The petitioner stated that on March 11, 2002, he filed a petition for a constitutional remedy
before the Court for the Judicial Review of Administrative Action [Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo] alleging
the violation of his constitutional rights as a result of the decisions sentencing him to strict arrest, as well as
the decision relieving him of his duties and excluding him from the list of officers for the XXI Joint Command
and General Staff Course, a prerequisite for promotion within the Navy. The court ruled this appeal
inadmissible on April 2, 2002 based on the reasoning that a constitutional remedy cannot be requested for a