The Commission has designated Commissioner Rose Marie B. Antoine and Executive Secretary Emilio Álvarez Icaza L. as its delegates. Likewise, Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Deputy Executive Secretary, and Silvia Serrano Guzmán and Jorge H. Meza Flores, attorneys of the Executive Secretariat of the IACHR, will serve as legal advisors. In accordance with Article 35 of the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court, the Commission has attached a copy of the admissibility report and the report on the merits, Report No. 40/14, prepared in compliance with Article 50 of the Convention, together with a copy of the complete record of the case before the Inter-American Commission (Appendix I) and the annexes used in the preparation of Report No. 40/14 (Annexes). Said report on the merits was notified to the State of Ecuador in a communication dated August 21, 2014, giving the State two months to report on compliance with the recommendations. The State of Ecuador did not respond to the Commission’s request. Accordingly, the Inter-American Commission submits to the jurisdiction of the Court all of the facts and human rights violations described in Report No. 40/14, in view of the need to obtain justice for the victims in the case. In this connection, the Commission requests that the Court conclude and declare that the State of Ecuador bears international responsibility for violating Articles 5 and 7 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument, as well as Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, to the detriment of Jorge Eliécer Herrera Espinoza, Luis Alfonso Jaramillo González, Eusebio Revelles, and Emmanuel Cano. Likewise, the Commission requests that the Court conclude and declare that the State of Ecuador bears international responsibility for violating Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights to the detriment of Mr. Eusebio Domingo Revelles, in relation to Articles 1.1 and 2 of said instrument. The Commission requests that the Court establish the following reparation measures: 1. Provide comprehensive reparations to the victims in the instant case, including both the material and immaterial aspect. 2. Conduct a serious, diligent, and effective investigation, within a reasonable period of time, to clarify the acts of torture described in the report, identify those responsible, and impose the corresponding sanctions. 3. Order that the corresponding administrative, disciplinary, and criminal measures be taken for actions or omissions by government officials (police officers, prosecutors, public defenders, and judges at various levels) whose conduct contributed to the violation of rights to the detriment of the victims in the case. 4. Adopt the measures necessary to prevent similar events from taking place in the future. Specifically, hold training programs for security forces, judges, and prosecutors on the absolute prohibition of acts of torture and of cruel, inhuman, or degrading acts, as well as on obligations under the exclusionary rule. Likewise, strengthen accountability mechanisms for officials responsible for the treatment of persons deprived of liberty. In addition to the need to obtain justice, the Commission underscores that the instant case involves matters of inter-American public order (ordre public). Specifically, the facts of the case reflect the implementation of a legal framework for the investigation and criminal prosecution of crimes related to drug trafficking that is incompatible with the American Convention. Thus, the case will enable the Court to deepen its jurisprudence on the obligations imposed by the rights to personal liberty, due process guarantees, and judicial protection, as well as limitations on the State’s efforts to combat certain crimes, such as drug trafficking and consumption. In addition, the case will allow the Court to take a position on the prohibition on States from resorting to torture to obtain self-incriminating statements from defendants and on the scope of the obligation of authorities to exclude such evidence from proceedings. The Commission considers that the case also affords the Court an opportunity to set the parameters to be used, without 2