2 March 23, 2006. On June 16, 2006, the Commission decided to submit the instant case to the jurisdiction of the Court1 in view of the lack of response from the State. 2. The Commission indicated that, at the time of the facts, Mr. Chaparro, a Chilean national, was the owner of the “Aislantes Plumavit Compañía Limitada” factory (hereinafter “the factory” or “the Plumavit factor”), which manufactured ice chests for transporting and exporting different products, while Mr. Lapo, an Ecuadorean national, was the manager of the factory. According to the application, as a result of the “Rivera anti-narcotics operation,” on November 14, 1997 Anti-narcotics Police officials seized a shipment of fish belonging to the company “Mariscos Oreana Maror” in Guayaquil’s Simón Bolívar Airport that was going to be sent to Miami, United States of America. The Commission stated that, in this shipment, some thermal insulated boxes or ice chests were found in which the presence of heroine and cocaine hydrochloride was discovered. According to the application, Mr. Chaparro was deemed to belong to an “international criminal organization” dedicated to international drug trafficking, because his factory produced ice chests similar to those seized. For this reason, the Guayas Twelfth Criminal Judge ordered a search of the Plumavit factory and the detention of Mr. Chaparro for investigative purposes. According to the Commission, at the time of Mr. Chaparro’s detention, the State authorities did not advise him of the respective reasons or justification, or of his right to request consular assistance from the country of which he was a national. The Commission advised that, during the search of the said factory, Mr. Lapo and other employees of the Plumavit factory were detained. The detention of Mr. Lapo was allegedly not made in flagrante delicto and it was not preceded by a written order by a judge; moreover, he, also, was not advised of the reasons and justification for his detention. The two alleged victims were allegedly transferred to a police station and remained incommunicado for five days. Supposedly, Mr. Chaparro did not have a lawyer present when he made his pre-trial statement and Mr. Lapo’s public defender was unsatisfactory. According to the Commission, the detention of the alleged victims exceeded the legal maximum allowed by domestic law and they were not taken before a judge promptly. 3. The Commission added that, even though several expert appraisals were conducted, which concluded that it was not possible that the seized ice chests had been made in the Plumavit factory and that there was no evidence at all to incriminate Mr. Chaparro and Mr. Lapo for the crime of illegal drug-trafficking, the alleged victims were remanded in custody for over a year. According to the application, Messrs. Chaparro and Lapo filed the recourses available to them requesting a review of the grounds for the preventive detention measure, but these recourses were unsuccessful. The Commission stated that the Plumavit factory was “seized” on November 15, 1997, following the search and, even though no drugs had been found, it was only returned to its owner, almost five years after it had been confiscated. Mr. Lapo’s vehicle has not yet been returned. Also, it appears that there are still public records and records in private institutions that include the criminal records of the alleged victims in relation to the facts of the instant case. 4. The Commission asked the Court to establish the international responsibility of the State for the violation, to the detriment of the two alleged victims, of the rights embodied in Articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), 21 (Right to Property) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the InterAmerican Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof. 1 The Commission appointed Evelio Fernández Arévalos, Commissioner, and Santiago A. Canton, Executive Secretary, as delegates, and the lawyers Ariel E. Dulitzky, Mario López Garelli, Víctor H. Madrigal Borloz and Lilly Ching Soto as legal advisers.

Select target paragraph3