7.
In relation to the alleged violation of the right to personal liberty, the petitioner alleged
that Mr. Carranza was detained by police without a court order or being caught in the act of committing an
offense. The petitioner said that the agents did not inform him of the reasons for his arrest. The petitioner
added that he was held in pretrial detention for approximately four years, which was an unreasonably long
time.
8.
In relation to the alleged violation of the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection, the
petitioner said that the criminal proceeding instituted against him did not meet the requirements of a fair
trial. The petitioner argued that the sentence was not proportionate, in that he was not granted the
reductions envisaged in domestic law in accordance with international standards. The petitioner said that Mr.
Carranza was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment even though he had already spent four years in pretrial
detention.
B.

The State

9.
The State argued that Mr. Carranza’s arrest and the length of his pretrial detention were
consistent with the provisions of its domestic system of laws and international standards.
10.
With regard to Mr. Carranza’s detention, Ecuador argued that at no point did he file an
application for habeas corpus in order to challenge his arrest. The State argued that his detention was lawful
because there was a judicial order for his arrest as a result of the fact that he had been a fugitive from justice
for almost a year. It added that after his arrest, Mr. Carranza was duly turned over to the relevant authorities
for his case to be heard. The State also said that the duration of the pretrial detention was reasonable given
that its purpose was to ensure Mr. Carranza's appearance at trial, bearing in mind that he had evaded justice
for almost a year.
11.
As regards Mr. Carranza’s criminal trial, Ecuador stated that it was conducted in accordance
with the rules of due process. It held that Mr. Carranza’s conviction was handed down in accordance with its
national law and international obligations. The State said that the duration of the proceedings was
reasonable. Their duration was due to the complexity of the matter and the fact that Mr. Carranza had evaded
justice for almost a year. It added that Mr. Carranza had access to all the remedies that the law afforded him,
such as appeal, cassation, or review, but that he did not have recourse to them.
12.
As to the proportionality of the sentence imposed on Mr. Carranza, the State said that the
court that sentenced him accepted his plea of mitigating circumstances and modified the sentence that the
law mandated (8 to 12 years). Ecuador said that the court sentenced Mr. Carranza to the “special term of
imprisonment of six years, precisely for his good behavior.”
IV.

PROVEN FACTS

A.

Mr. Carranza’s arrest in August 1993

13.
On August 16, 1993, Segundo Mariño Gamboa filed a complaint at the National Police Station
in Yaguachi Canton, Guayas Province.2 Mr. Mariño said that his brother, Samuel Evaristo, had been murdered
the previous day at an establishment that sold alcoholic beverages.3 He said that according to witnesses, were
Ramón Rosendo Carranza Alarcón and Alfredo Vargas Recalde were at the scene and that they got into a

2 Complaint filed with the National Police Station in Yaguachi Canton by Mr. Segundo Mariño Gamboa, brother of Samuel
Mariño, August 16, 1993. Enclosed with the State's communication of July 15, 2016.
3 Complaint filed with the National Police Station in Yaguachi Canton by Mr. Segundo Mariño Gamboa, brother of Samuel
Mariño, August 16, 1993. Enclosed with the State's communication of July 15, 2016.

2

Select target paragraph3