III. A. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES Position of the petitioners 7. The petitioners allege that on February 27, 2001, at approximately 3:30 a.m., patrol car No. 115 of the Guayaquil National Police 1 approached Joffre Antonio Aroca Palma (21), who was waiting for a bus together with a group of friends from the neighborhood.2 The four occupants of the patrol car allegedly harassed the youths and requested their identification documents, in response to which Joffre Antonio Aroca Palma is said to have asked them for an explanation. The petitioners say that thereupon the policemen in patrol car No. 115 detained Joffre Antonio Aroca Palma and drove off with him along the hill that leads to the rear of the Estadio Monumental (Monumental Arena). The petitioners claim that at that spot, two policemen made Joffre Antonio Aroca Palma get out of the vehicle and walked with him approximately 100 meters away, after which one of the policeman returned alone to the patrol car. They say that two minutes later the shot of a firearm was heard and then the other policeman jogged back to the patrol car without the detainee, whereupon the policemen continued their patrol without reporting the arrest to the police radio control center. The petitioners indicate that Joffre Antonio’s body was found later that same day (February 27, 2001) at the rear of the Estadio Monumental and taken to the National Police morgue in Guayaquil. 8. The petitioners claim that on March 6, 2001, Metropolitan Police Officer José Francisco Bone Franco, one of the occupants of the patrol car No. 115, informed the Metropolitan Police Company Commander of the events that occurred in the early hours of February 27, 2001, and said that he had learned from the press that Joffre Antonio Aroca Palma had been found dead. The petitioners say that, based on this information, the Company Commander requested the Judge of the Seventh Criminal Court to issue arrest warrants for Metropolitan Police Officer Bone and driver Lara Valencia, whose arrests were carried out on March 7, 2001. They also allege that National Police Officer Edison Patricio Yépez Espín was arrested on the verbal orders of the Judge of the Second Court of the Fourth National Police District, and that on March 8, 2001, National Police Second Lieutenant Carlos Eduardo Rivera Enríquez voluntarily reported to the offices of the Judicial Police of Guayas and was taken into custody They say that as result of the foregoing, two criminal proceedings were initiated: one in the ordinary jurisdiction and one in the police jurisdiction. 9. As regards to the criminal investigation in the ordinary jurisdiction, the petitioners note that on March 22, 2001, the Judge of the Fifth Criminal Court of Guayas ordered the initiation of the judicial proceedings and the pre-trial detention of José Francisco Bone Franco and Willer Keller Lara Valencia. On July 17, 2001 an order for trial was issued against José Francisco Bone Franco and Willer Keller Lara Valencia charging them with accessory after the fact to murder; annulled the pretrial detention order of the accused pursuant to Supreme Court ruling No. 30-10-85, which provides that accessories after the fact are not subject to pre-trial detention and,3 therefore, ordered their immediate release. The petitioners say that in the 1 The petitioners say that the policeman who were in the patrol car were National Police Second Lieutenant Carlos Eduardo Rivera Enríquez; National Police Officer Edison Patricio Yépez Espín; Metropolitan Police Officer José Francisco Bone Franco, and driver Willer Keller Lara Valencia. Original petition received by the IACHR on June 20, 2002. 2 The petitioners cite the testimony of a number of witnesses which indicates that Zoila García, Alfredo Sani, Mariuxi Sani, Raúl Sani, Duval Orobio, and Carolina Arechua were gathered at the corner of Pedro Pablo Gómez Street and 17th Street in the city of Guayaquil. Testimony of Duval Bernardo Orobio Coello and Mariuxi Ángela Sani Salcedo to Justice Police Captain Fabián Salas Duarte, May 9, 2001. Annexes to the original petition received by the IACHR on June 20, 2002. 3 The petitioners note that Supreme Court ruling No. 30-10-85, which was issued to clarify doubts or obscurities in the law, provides that, under Article 177 of the 1983 Code of Criminal Procedure, which was 2