Peralta Mendoza formalized her accusation against Dr. Guerrero Gutiérrez as the perpetrator of
the crime and Dr. Minchala Pinchú, as accomplice and accessory after the fact.
12. The petitioner alleges that on October 12, 2001 the First Prosecutor for Criminal Matters of
Guayas asked to reopen the preliminary proceeding in order to take signed statements from
both doctors. On October 18, 2001, the complainant submitted a brief indicating her objection
to the reopening of the process because she felt that it suggested a desire on the part of those
under investigation to delay the process indefinitely. In addition, on October 29, 2001 she
asked that the preliminary proceeding be extended to Dr. Jenny Bohórquez, who had asked to
lease the operating suite at Dr. Michala’s clinic so that Dr. Guerrero could perform the surgery
in question. On November 13 and 20, 2001, Mrs. Peralta Mendoza submitted requests to close
the preliminary proceeding so as not to continue delaying the process.
13. The petitioner states that on February 7, 2003, a summons was issued for Dr. Emilio
Guerrero Gutiérrez to appear for the full trial. However, because he was a fugitive, the
proceeding against him was suspended until he appeared or was captured. The petitioner
alleges that the same ruling provisionally acquitted Wilson Minchala Pinchú due to insufficient
evidence of guilt.
14. The petitioner states that on February 24, 2004 Dr. Guerrero Gutiérrez filed his appeal,
which was admitted. She states that on June 29, 2004 the Third Specialized Chamber for
Criminal, Collusion, and Traffic Matters confirmed all parts of the summons to appear at the
full trial issued against Guerrero Gutiérrez, as well as the provisional stay of the process and
acquittal of Dr. Minchala Pinchú.5 On September 17, 2004, Dr. Guerrero Gutiérrez requested
bail and replacement of the precautionary measure of preventive detention with alternative
measures. On September 21, 2004, he was granted bail, which was paid.6 On September 20,
2004, Dr. Guerrero Gutiérrez requested that the operation of the statute of limitations be
declared because more than four years had passed since the Order to Open the Judicial
Process was issued against him.
15. The petitioner states that on June 28, 2005 the complainant again filed a brief indicating
her objection to the “improper and illegal” procedural delay. The petitioner also states that on
September 8, 2005 the accused again sought the operation of the statute of limitations
because more than five years had passed since the issuance of the Order to Open the Judicial
Process.
16. The petitioner states that on June 30, 2005 competence was assigned to the First Tribunal
for Criminal Matters, which returned the case file to the First Court for Criminal Matters on July
5, 2006, given that the accused’s petition to suspend the preventive detention order had not
been resolved. On July 28, 2005, the First Court for Criminal Matters suspended the preventive
detention order, given that the amount of the bail had been assigned. Mrs. Peralta Mendoza
submitted petitions on August 23, September 5, and September 7, 2005 asking that public
prosecution proceedings be conducted.7
17. The petitioner states that on September 20, 2005 the First Tribunal for Criminal Matters
issued a ruling ordering the operation of the statute of limitations in favor of Emilio Guerrero,
because more than five years had passed since the Order to Open the Judicial Process had
been issued against him. The petitioner states that in response, the complainant asked that
the corresponding fine be imposed on the administrator of justice given that the lapse of the
5 After two requests from the accused to clarify and expand this ruling, which were denied; the judge issued an order
notifying the parties that Dr. Guerrero Gutiérrez was a fugitive and the Police should be ordered to find and capture
him. Original petition received by the IACHR on February 23, 2006, p. XIX.
6 The petitioner stated that bail was set at $837.00, so the complainant asked that the amount be reconsidered and
increased, because its value was not enough to cover damages and procedural costs. The petitioner states that the
accused asked that bail be reduced. Original petition received by the IACHR on February 23, 2006, p. XX.
7 Original petition received by the IACHR on February 23, 2006, p. XXII.
3