14. The petitioners say that owing to the failure of Edison Patricio Yépez Espín to appear in order to “present testimony,” on February 18, 2002, the Second Court of the Fourth National Police District suspended the trial of the accused until the latter was apprehended or came forward voluntarily. Furthermore, they say that the Second Court ordered the location and capture of Edison Patricio Yépez Espín, decided to continue with the trial of Carlos Eduardo Rivera Enríquez alone, and summonsed him to present his testimony. 15. The petitioners claim that on March 27, 2002, the Second Court of the Fourth National Police District announced that the precautionary measure issued against Carlos Eduardo Rivera Enríquez had lapsed because the time limit of one year set forth in Article 24(8) of the Constitution of Ecuador had run.5 They argue that the precautionary measure expired because of the constant delays by the police courts in delivering their decisions and “a series of unlawful incidents caused by the accused, which the police authorities did little or nothing to prevent.” 6 16. They say that on April 19, 2002, the Criminal Tribunal for Superior Officers of the National Police returned a judgment at first instance, in which it sentenced Carlos Eduardo Rivera Enríquez to “eight years of long-term ordinary imprisonment, which sentence is amended and reduced in accordance with Article 66 (2) of the National Police Criminal Code, since it considers that it is also appropriate to take into account as extenuating circumstances his conduct before and after the event, [...] the fact that he presented himself voluntarily to face trial […].” It also provided that “the time he has spent in detention for the same reason shall be deducted” from the sentence. The petitioners claim that immediately after this judgment was delivered Carlos Eduardo Rivera Enríquez was released because the precautionary measure had lapsed. 17. They mention that Winston Joffre Aroca Melgar lodged an appeal against the judgment of the Criminal Tribunal for Superior Officers of the National Police and that on November 5, 2002; the Second National Police District Court confirmed the appealed decision. They hold that Winston Joffre Aroca Melgar appealed the judgment at second instance and on February 25, 2003, the National Court of Police Justice ruled on the appeal at third instance and upheld the appealed judgment. The petitioners claim that on June 11, 2003, the Second National Police District Court ordered the location and capture of Carlos Eduardo Rivera Enríquez so that he might be made to serve the prison sentence imposed, which, as of the adoption of the instant report, had not occurred. 18. To summarize, the petitioners allege the responsibility of agents of the state in the death of Joffre Antonio Aroca Palma and that of the four investigations of the men accused -two in the ordinary courts and two in the police courts- only one sentence has been returned in the police jurisdiction, which has not been served on account of the fact that the convicted man remains at large owing to the slowness and inaction of the judicial authorities. They further argue that the Ecuadorian State has not met its constitutional obligation to provide civil reparation for the harm caused.7 In sum, the petitioners argue that the Ecuadorian State is responsible for 5 The petitioners cite Article 24(8) of the Constitution of Ecuador of 1998. “Without prejudice to other guarantees recognized in the Constitution, international instruments, laws, or case law, the following basic guarantees must be observed in order to ensure a fair trial: […] 8. Pre-trial detention may not exceed six months in cases involving offenses punishable with imprisonment of up to five years; nor one year with respect to offenses punishable with imprisonment for longer than five years. Once these time limits elapse, the pre-trial detention order shall become void, under the liability of the judge hearing the case. In all cases, without exception, once the dismissal or acquittal has been ruled, the detainee shall immediately regain their liberty, without prejudice to any pending inquiry or appeal.” 6 Petitioners’ brief received at the IACHR on August 7, 2003. 7 The petitioners refer to Article 22 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador of 1998, which provides, “The State bears civil liability for judicial errors arising from inadequate administration of justice, for any 4