22 Escobedo, who was carrying out his duties at the time of the events and, as a law enforcement officer, is considered to be on duty 24 hours a day. Hence, the proper authorities to hear and 68 decide this case are the jurisdictional bodies of the National Civil Police. […]. 118. The Commission does not have any additional information concerning the legal grounds for three separate judges in the same collegiate body to each issue different rulings. The references to this proceeding appear in the February 26, 2002 decision (infra) of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, which it described as “sui generis”;69 references to this proceeding also appear in the notification of the three judgments, which states that based on the principle of in dubio pro reo, the verdict that stands is one that imposes the least severe sentence, which in this case is a sentence of 18 months in prison for unintentional homicide. 119. On January 2, 1996, police officer Cortez Escobedo was released on the grounds that he had served the sentence imposed, as he had already been in detention for three years and three months.70 120. The police officer filed a cassation appeal challenging the “rulings” of the First Criminal Court of Esmeraldas. For her part, the defense counsel representing the police officer filed an appeal to have the annulment of the verdict, arguing that the case should have been heard in police court.71 121. On May 15, 2000, the Esmeraldas Superior Court issued a decision denying the appeal filed by the convicted police officer and confirming the guilty verdict.72 122. When it received this most recent ruling by the Esmeraldas Superior Court on June 16, 2000, the Esmeraldas Criminal Court ordered the case file to be sent up to the Supreme Court for a ruling on the cassation appeal filed by the convicted police officer and by the provincial prosecutor.73 123. On February 26, 2002, the Second Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court denied the appeals filed and, in application of the principle of in dubio pro reo, confirmed the sentence of 18 months in prison. The Chamber wrote that: […] from a review of the verdict being appealed and the sui generis manner in which the ruling is put together, there are reasonable doubts regarding the existence of the distinctive elements that define simple homicide which are, according to Article 449 of the Penal Code, first, a willful intent, in other words, the direct intent of the offending party’s conduct must be unmistakable, 68 Appendix 22. November 17, 1995 judgment of the Criminal Court of Esmeraldas (Attachment to the petitioner’s brief of April 10, 1996). 69 Appendix 34. Judgment of the Second Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, February 26, 2002 (Attachment to the petitioner’s brief of June 19, 2009). 70 Appendix 35. August 8, 1996 National Police Report (Attachment to the State’s brief of September 5, 1996). 71 Appendix 34. Judgment of the Second Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, February 26, 2002 (Attachment to the petitioner’s brief of June 19, 2009). 72 Appendix 36. The Superior Court’s Decision on the May 15, 2000 appeal filed by defendant Guillermo Cortez Escobedo to have his verdict vacated (Attachment to the petitioner’s brief of June 19, 2009). 73 Appendix 37. June 16, 2000 order from the First Criminal Court of Esmeraldas sending the case to the Supreme Court (Attachment to the petitioner’s brief of June 19, 2009).