A. Position of the petitioners 6. As contextual information, the petitioners mentioned that at the time of the alleged victim’s disappearance, members of the security forces implemented a policy of State repression against persons linked to the Group "Alfaro Vive Carajo." They stated that this context included illegal detentions as well as disappearances notorious for the denial of detention and the refusal to provide any information about what happened to those detained. 7. The petitioners cited as precedent that on August 7, 1989 César Gustavo Garzón was detained and tortured by members of the Criminal Investigations Service of Pichincha. They alleged that he was later transferred to the García Moreno Prison where he remained for 13 months until his release on September 7, 1990, when the judge in the case dismissed the charges due to lack of evidence. 8. The petitioners alleged that on November 10, 1990, two months after the detention, César Gustavo Garzón Guzmán disappeared after midnight when leaving the discotheque “Sol Candela” located in Amazonas Avenue and Reina Victoria Street in the city of Quito. They stated that at the time of his disappearance, César Gustavo Garzón Guzmán was preparing for his graduation as Doctor in Literature at the University in Ecuador. 9. The petitioners indicated that, when his relatives noticed that he didn’t get home that night, they started to search for him in clinics, hospitals, prisons, and even the morgue, without success. They alleged that on November 11, 1990 at 6:00 PM, his relatives went to the Criminal Investigations Service of Pichincha to report his disappearance, but the agency refused to take the report alleging that it had not yet been 48 hours since his disappearance. 10. The petitioners stated that at that time, in 1990, it was a common practice for the police not to receive these complaints within the first 48 hours. 11. The petitioners mentioned that on November 14, 1990 fellow classmates of César Gustavo Garzón reported his disappearance to various media outlets such as the newspapers El Comercio, La Hora, Últimas Noticias, Radio Quito and Radio Tarqui. They stated that on November 28, 1990 writers from Pichincha publicly and again denounced the disappearance of the alleged victim. 12. According to the petitioners, on November 16, 1990 the alleged victim’s next of kin lodged a complaint with the Criminal Investigations Service of Pichincha. However, as no results were attained, on November 23, 1990 another complaint was lodged with the President of National Congress who, in response, sent a written communication to the Director of Investigations of the National Police urging that the situation be investigated. The petitioners also said that on November 29, 1990 they filed a complaint with the Tribunal of Constitutional Guarantees, which referred the matter to the Ministry of Government and Police. 13. The petitioners alleged that on January 8, 1991 the police informed them, by means of an informative bulletin, that the investigation carried out in the case was unsuccessful. They added that even though the police sent several letters assigning the investigation to internal units, they never carried out a real investigation to shed light on the events. 14. The petitioners added that the relatives continued for several years approaching various authorities who were then in office, to request that investigations be carried out to shed light on what happened to the alleged victim, but the truth was never officially revealed. 15. The petitioners informed that in May 2003 the newspaper El Comercio published two reports in which it was stated that a former National Army Officer affirmed that the Commander General of the Police, General Edgar Vaca, would know where the remains of Mr. Garzón could be found. These reports also indicated that the aforementioned General used to torture and to extra-judicially execute the members of the “Alfaro Vive Carajo” Group. The petitioners also pointed out that these reports stated that the former National Army Officer 2