submitted within the following 30 days. On August 7, 2002, the State requested a 30-day extension for submitting its reply. On August 9, 2002, the Commission granted this extension but to date, the State has not furnished any further information. III. A. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES REGARDING ADMISSIBILITY Petitioner 6. On October 26, 1992, the Council of Superior Officers, through a secret committee set up by Commanding Admiral of the Navy Jezid Jaramillo, resolved to discharge Mr. Grijalva from the service on allegations of bad conduct. Mr. Grijalva maintains that his discharge was based on false evidence and claims that Capt. Fausto Morales Villota, the assistant director of the Intelligence Service, produced false documents to incriminate him and another group of seamen in alleged irregularities in the port of Bolívar. 7. On November 19, 1993, Commanding Admiral of the Navy Oswaldo Viteri ordered the law judge of the First Naval Zone, Rear Admiral Hugo Cañate Jalón, to begin legal action against Mr. Grijalva, even though the First Naval Zone’s investigating judge ruled that there were no grounds for a criminal trial. On November 29, 1993, the commanding officer of the First Naval Zone, Hugo Cañarte, ordered the First Naval Zone’s military criminal judge to begin summary proceedings. On November 30, 1993, criminal judge Pablo Burgos Cuenca opened the summary proceeding; the prosecuting officer was Dr. Ramiro Cruz Mayorga, the Third Naval Zone’s prosecutor, who had, in conjunction with Third Zone judge Carlos Romero, covered up the crimes committed in the case of Stalin Bolaños (the case that Mr. Grijalva had reported to his superiors). 8. In this trial Mr. Vicente Grijalva was convicted in a military court, on the basis of the same accusations and evidence that led to his discharge. The judge at this trial was Capt. Shuber Barriga Chiriboga, a lawyer who had previously ruled that the death of Stalin Bolaños was due to alcoholic poisoning, thereby completely exonerating the individual responsible (Fausto Morales). 9. On October 19, 1998, the First Naval Zone’s Law Court opened the plenary session and Mr. Grijalva was criminally charged before military courts (his earlier discharge notwithstanding) with the crime of abuse of authority, based on the same incidents that had led to his dismissal from the service. On March 13, 2000, presiding judge Admiral Fernando Donoso Morán handed down a conviction against Mr. Grijalva. On March 13, 2001, the Court of Military Justice issued a judgment upholding Mr. Grijalva’s abuse of authority conviction. 10. On September 8, 1994, Mr. Grijalva asked the Court of Constitutional Guarantees–the supreme authority on matters related to human rights and constitutional guarantees–to analyze his discharge from the navy. On September 12, 1995, the Court of Constitutional Guarantees ordered the navy to reinstate Mr. Grijalva and another eight sergeants who had also been discharged from the service because the dismissal procedures had failed to respect their right of defense. The provisions of that resolution have still not been enforced. B. State 11. In its initial reply, the State gave an overview of the history of Mr. Grijalva’s case before the Ecuadorian courts; it also stated that the appropriate and effective domestic remedies for resolving the petitioner’s legal situation had not yet been exhausted since there was still an outstanding criminal case against Mr. Grijalva for allegedly collecting illicit sums

Select target paragraph3