REPORT Nº 68/021 ADMISSIBILITY PETITION 649/01 VICENTE ANÍBAL GRIJALVA BUENO ECUADOR October 10, 2002 I. SUMMARY 1. On September 13, 2001, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission”) received a complaint lodged by Dr. Francisco López Bermúdez, the director of the Andean Democratic Audit, an Ecuadorian nongovernmental organization, on behalf of Vicente Anibal Grijalva Bueno, (hereinafter “the petitioner”), against the Republic of Ecuador (hereinafter “Ecuador” or “the State”) claiming a breach of legal due process and the absence of judicial protection in the violation of the right to be heard by the appropriate judge since he was being prosecuted by a military court. In addition he claimed a violation of the right to judicial protection due to the Ecuadorian Government’s failure to abide by a resolution handed down by the Court of Constitutional Guarantees. The petitioner claims violations of Articles 8 (right to a fair trial) and 25 (judicial protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention”), all in breach of the obligations set forth in Article 1(1) thereof. 2. According to the petition, during the administration of President León FebresCordero (1984-88), a series of human rights abuses were committed. In August 1991, Capt. Grijalva, Security Chief of the First Naval Zone, was apprised of these facts by, inter alia, Balter Prías, an agent of the Naval Intelligence Service. Capt. Grijalva immediately reported this information to his superiors. At that moment a clear and persistent campaign of persecution was launched against him; he was even charged with a series of crimes that he did not commit, which ultimately led to his dismissal and his conviction by military courts. The petition maintains that this violated Mr. Grijalva’s right to due process and judicial protection, as set forth in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. 3. Consequently, since the petition meets the requirements set in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, the Commission decides to declare this case admissible, to notify the parties of that decision, and to continue with an analysis of the merits with respect to the alleged violations of Articles 8, 25, and 1(1) of the American Convention. At the same time, it decides to publish this report. II. PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION 4. On November 19, 2001, the Commission began processing this petition as Nº P-649/01 and transmitted the relevant parts to the Ecuadorian State, with a two-month deadline for it to submit information. 5. On April 30, 2002, the Commission received the State’s response to the petition. This response was forwarded to the petitioner on May 17, 2002, with a request for him to submit his comments within a period of 30 days. On June 18, 2002, the Commission received the petitioner’s comments on the State’s response. On July 2, 2002, the comments were transmitted to the State, along with a request for any additional information to be 1Dr. Julio Prado Vallejo, an Ecuadorian national, did not participate in this case in compliance with Article 17 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure.

Seleccionar párrafo de destino3