3. Mr. Chaparro was the owner of the Plumavit Factory when he was arrested and the police
mistakenly assumed that this Factory had produced the containers in which 400 kilos of drugs had
been discovered at the Airport. The Factory was completely searched and no traces of drugs were
discovered and it was also confirmed that the Plumavit Factory had not manufactured the
containers. The State, for its part, argues that no rights were violated since due process had been
strictly observed. The Commission has learned from a companion case (P172/99) that on
November 12, 2001, the Fourth Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Guayaquil
“provisionally” dismissed the proceedings against Mr. Chaparro.
4. The Commission decides in this report that Petition 12.091 meets the admissibility
requirements set forth in Articles 46 of the American Convention. Therefore, the Commission
decides to declare the petition admissible, to open the case and to notify the parties of this
decision, and to continue with its analysis of the merits regarding the alleged violations of Articles
5, 7, 8, 21 and 25 of the American Convention in conjunction with Article 1(1).
5. Mr. Lapo, the second petitioner, maintains that on November 15, 1997, he and three coworkers were illegally detained in his place of employment, the Plumavit Factory, by civil-clothed
police officers who were accompanied by a large number of subordinates, dressed in combat
uniforms and heavily armed with machine-guns and other weapons. Mr. Lapo was detained,
without a judicial warrant, on suspicion of drug trafficking and was held in detention for one year,
six months and eleven days in the Center of Social Rehabilitation in Guayaquil. Mr. Lapo was
released from detention on May 26, 1999. He requests US $5 million dollars in compensation and
the punishment of the members of the police and judiciary who involved him in this drugtrafficking case.
6. Mr. Lapo Iñiguez was the Production Manager of the Plumavit Factory when he was arrested
and the police mistakenly assumed that this Factory had produced the containers in which 400
kilos of drugs had been discovered at the Airport. The Factory was completely searched and no
traces of drugs were discovered and it was also confirmed that the Plumavit Factory had not
manufactured the containers. The State, for its part, argues that no rights were violated since due
process had been strictly observed and that the Fourth Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice
of Guayaquil dismissed the proceedings against the petitioner and ordered his release from
detention.
7. The Commission decides in this report that Petition 172/99 meets the admissibility
requirements set forth in Article 46 of the American Convention. Therefore, the Commission
decides to declare the petition admissible, to open the case and to notify the parties of this
decision, and to continue with its analysis of the merits regarding the alleged violations of Articles
7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention in conjunction with Article 1(1).
II.
PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION
8. The Commission received the first petitioner’s (Mr. Chaparro) complaint on September 8, 1998.
On January 15, 1999, the Commission received additional information from Mr. Chaparro’s son.
On January 26, 1999, the Commission communicated the petition to the State and requested a
response within three months. On March 24, 1999, the Commission received the response from
the State, which was transmitted to the petitioners on April 16, 1999 with a request for
observations to be presented within 30 days. On June 10, 1999, the Commission received Mr.
Chaparro’s observations, which are dated May 30, 1999. These observations, in turn, were
communicated to the State on August 24, 1999. On July 9, 2002, Mr. Chaparro informed the
Commission that he had engaged the services of Mr. Zavala-Giler to continue processing his case
before the Commission. Mr. Zavala-Giler requested and was provided with the relevant
documentation on the status of the petition. On August 19, 2002, Mr. Zavala-Giler filed an
updated petition and a response was presented to the observations formulated by the State. On