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

Select target paragraph3