11 d) on January 14, 1998 the High Court of Guayaquil upheld the provisional discontinuance of the proceeding and quashing of the indictment, issued by the lower court on September 3, 1997, and ordered the release of Mr. Tibi, who was released on January 21, 1998. If at the time of Mr. Tibi’s release there had been criminal proceedings pending, it is unlikely that he would have been allowed to leave the country and return to France; e) on July 15, 1998 the Commission received the complaint, which was forwarded to the State on May 7, 1999. On October 5, 2000 the Commission ruled on admissibility. “The State d[id] not explain which ‘criminal proceedings’ were allegedly pending against Mr. Tibi on July 15, 1998;” f) the two courts that heard the case dismissed the charges against Daniel Tibi, because his conduct had not been linked to them or to the case. Therefore, Mr. Tibi and the other persons covered by the dismissal were excluded from the following stage of the criminal proceeding (full trial). The High Court of Guayaquil should have issued a “definitive” order quashing the indictment, instead of upholding the “provisional” discontinuance; g) Mr. Tibi filed two judicial amparo remedies to challenge the lawfulness of the detention: the first one, on July 1, 1996, which was rejected, and the second one, on October 2, 1997, but the judicial authorities never replied to this request. The amparo remedies were ineffective, as they did not lead to his release, nor did they lead the Ecuadorian authorities to conduct an investigation of the complaint regarding human and constitutional rights; h) the cassation remedy and the motion for review mentioned by the State in its pleadings before the Commission are only effective in regards to a non-appealable judgment. In the instant case, the charges against Mr. Tibi were dismissed; i) in the proceeding before the Commission, the State did not refer to the constitutional habeas corpus remedy or to the need to file an action for damages or motion of appeal during the admissibility stage. Therefore, it is not in order for it to do so before the Court; j) in regards to Daniel Tibi’s property that was seized when he was detained, the State did not specify what procedures should have been followed for it to be returned. The State itself argues that Mr. Tibi never requested this after his release. Once the dismissal of the accusation was upheld, an order was issued to return the property and “to date [September 15, 2003] the issue has not been resolved, [...which entails] an unjustified delay;” and k) the State has submitted contradictory pleadings regarding the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies. In its pleadings before the Commission and the Court, it asserted on the one hand that the decision on admissibility was prior to completion of the criminal proceeding, and on the other hand, in its reply to the application before the Court, it argued that the criminal proceeding continued until the provisional dismissal was upheld. Pursuant to the jurisprudence of the Court, when a party has adopted an attitude that is beneficial to that party or detrimental to the opposite party, it cannot