reality.”80 In said communication, the Office of the Prosecutor claimed that even though the medical experts concluded that there were injuries in the process of reabsorption stemming from traumatic action of a hard blunt body and abuses received, they are “facts that are refuted in the statements given by [Eusebio Domingo Revelles] to the Representative of the Prosecutor’s Office, before whom it is on record that his statement is free and voluntary and, he replies to the question posed by this official, which […] leads to the presumption of the misrepresentation of his statement that he was forced to sign said statement, finding that his only aim is to evade his responsibility in the crime under investigation.””81. 98. On November 24, 1998, the Fourth Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice handed down judgment regarding the “review” of the judgment issued by the Second Court for Criminal Matters. The Chamber found Eusebio Domingo Revelles to be an “accomplice to the crime of illegal trafficking of cocaine, upholding the reviewed judgment, sentencing him “to a SIX YEAR ORDINARY MINOR PRISON TERM […] in addition to imposing the FINE OF ONE HUNDRED GENERAL MINIMUM SALARIES, as well as the FORFEITURE of all of his property, money, securities and other items that may have been seized by the Criminal Court Judge […]”82. After establishing the existence of the drugs, the grounds for the decision of the Superior Court of Justice are supported in the pre-indictment statements of both Mr. Eusebio Domingo Revelles himself and other defendants. All of the statements upon which this decision is based were denounced during the proceedings as obtained under beatings, torture and abuses.83 E. Hábeas corpus Relief sought by Eusebio Domingo Revelles with regard to pretrial custody 99. Mr. Eusebio Domingo Revelles filed a petition for hábeas corpus relief for being held in pretrial detention, which was denied by the Mayor of Metropolitan District of Quito on August 25, 1998. As is identified in the ruling denying the appeal of this decision to deny, the Mayor’s Office ordered the detainee to be brought before her on August 25, 1998 along with the custody order. The motion was denied on the grounds of Official Letter No. 42-98 of August 24, 1998, sent by the Second Court for Criminal Matters of Pichincha, which advised that: […] judgment be imposed on him on April 1, 1998 […] sentencing him to an ordinary minor sixyear prison term, automatically sending up the judgment for review as provided by law to the Fourth Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Quito, which, in Official Letter No. 141-98 CSJQS, of August 25, 1998 […] [reported] that the proceeding is at the stage of the Chamber issuing the appropriate ruling […].84 100. Mr. Eusebio Domingo Revelles appealed the above-cited ruling basing his motion on Article 24, subsection 8, of the Constitution, before the Second Chamber of the Constitutional Court, which ruled on November 9, 1998 upholding the decision of the Mayor.85 Pursuant to the judgment, “the case has been heard in keeping with the relevant provisions of the law and, therefore, it cannot be vacated.” Additionally, as the Constitutional Court explained with regard to the petition for hábeas corpus: 80Annex 37. Submission of the Office of the Prosecutor before the Fourth Chamber of the Superior Court of Quito, Received on June 12, 1998. Annex to petitioner’s submission of November 13, 1998. 81Annex 37. Submission of the Office of the Prosecutor before the Fourth Chamber of the Superior Court of Quito, Received on June 12, 1998. Annex to petitioner’s submission of November 13, 1998. 82Annex 1. Superior Court of Justice, Fourth Chamber, Judgment of November 24, 1998. Annex to petitioner’s communication received on April 19, 1999. 83Annex 1. Superior Court of Justice, Fourth Chamber, Judgment of November 24, 1998. Annex to petitioner’s communication received on April 19, 1999. 84Annex 38. Constitutional Court, Second Chamber, Judgment of November 09, 1998. Annex to petitioner’s communication received on April 19, 1999. 85Annex 38. Constitutional Court, Second Chamber, Judgment of November 09, 1998. Annex to petitioner’s communication received on April 19, 1999. 25