65. On March 3, 2000, the Third Criminal Court of Pichincha issued a detention order for Mr. Cortez, who was already deprived of liberty. 64 66. On March 8, 2000, Mr. Cortez filed a habeas corpus before the Mayor of the City of Quito, requesting his release. 65 67. When his habeas corpus was denied, 66 Mr. Cortez filed a second habeas corpus request on March 29, 2000, which was declared inadmissible on the same day. 67 68. On April 4, 2000, a brother of Mr. Cortez asked the Constitutional Court to analyze the constitutionality of the habeas corpus requests Mr. Cortez had filed. 68 In response, on May 9, 2000, the Constitutional Court reversed the March 8, 2000, order issued by the Mayor of Quito and granted the remedy of habeas corpus file by Mr. Cortez, ordering his release. That decision noted the following: Gonzalo Orlando Cortez Espinoza was detained on February 28, 2000, even though an order for his detention had not been issued by the judge with jurisdiction. This is shown by the fact that at 10:15 a.m. on March 3, 2000, the Third Criminal Judge of Pichincha issued an order [...] for him to remain [in custody], when the Metropolitan Mayor of Quito, in processing the habeas corpus, had ordered that Gonzalo Orlando Cortez Espinoza be brought before him at 9:30 a.m. on March 3. 69 69. On May 11, 2000, Mr. Cortez Espinoza was released. 70 70. On September 2, 2009, the Third Criminal Court of Pichincha declared that the criminal case against Mr. Cortez had exceeded the statute of limitations. It noted that Article 101 of the Criminal Code established a five-year term for the prosecution of public crimes carrying a penalty of imprisonment. The five-year term began, “in the case of a trial,” on the date of the indictment. It also stated the following: (1) The crime GONZALO ORLANDO CORTES ESPINOZA (sic) has been charged with carries a penalty of imprisonment; and (2) The period of time since March 19, 1997, when the Third Criminal Judge of Pichincha issued the indictment, until the present, exceeds the statute of limitations established in the abovementioned legal provision. Therefore, in accordance with Article 101 of the Criminal Code, THIS CRIMINAL CASE IS DECLARED EXPIRED UNDER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. 71 71. The expiration of the statute of limitations was confirmed by the Provincial Court of Justice of Pichincha on January 3, 2011, and on the 17th of the same month, the case was closed. 72 Cf. Constitutional Court, Order of the Third Division on May 9, 2000 (evidence file, annex 12 to the Merits Report, folios 299 and 300). 65 Cf. Habeas corpus of Mr. Cortez before the Mayor of Quito, March 8, 2000 (evidence file, annex 7 to the pleadings and motions brief, folio 844). 66 The Commission, in its Merits Report, stated that the first habeas corpus filed by Mr. Cortez was declared inadmissible, and it stated that it did not have a copy of the order declaring its inadmissibility. The State also said that the first habeas corpus request was declared inadmissible. Mr. Cortez, at the public hearing (supra para. 9), declared that the denial of the habeas corpus was communicated to him orally by security officers. 67 Cf. Habeas corpus request of Mr. Cortez before the Mayor of Quito on March 29, 2000, and Notification of the denial of the request from the Municipality of Quito on March 29, 2000 (evidence file, annexes 16 and 17 of the Merits Report, folios 312 and 314 respectively). 68 Cf. Presentation before the Constitutional Court by G. Cortez on April 4, 2000 (evidence file, annex 18 to the Merits Report, folio 316). 69 Constitutional Court, Order of the Third Division on May 9, 2000, supra. 70 Document by Mr. Cortez on May 18, 2000, sent to the Commission on Human Rights of the National Congress (evidence file, annex 20 to the Merits Report, folios 318 and 319). 71 Third Criminal Judge of Pichincha, record of statute of limitations expiration in criminal trial, September 2, 2009 (evidence file, annex XXXI to the answering brief, folio 1070). 72 Cf. Decision issued by the Provincial Court of Justice of Pichincha, First Division of Criminal Guarantees, on March 3, 2011 (evidence file, annex 15 to the pleadings and motions brief, folio 870), and Automated System of 64 17