REPORT No. 1/10
PETITION 2723-02
ADMISSIBILITY
HOMERO FLOR FREIRE
ECUADOR
March 15, 2010
I.

SUMMARY

1.
On August 30, 2002, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
(hereinafter “the Commission”) received a petition presented by Alejandro Ponce Villacís and
Juan Manuel Marchán (hereinafter “the petitioners”) in which it is alleged that the Republic of
Ecuador is responsible for the discharge of Homero Flor Freire, Officer of the Military Police of
the Ecuadorian Armed Force (hereinafter the “Army”) for having alleged committed a
disciplinary breach.
2.
The petitioners alleged that the State was responsible for violating the rights
to judicial guarantees, the principle of legality and non-retroactivity, protection of honor and
dignity, equality before the law, and judicial protection, established at Articles 8(1), 9, 11,
24, and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter the “Convention” or the
“American Convention”) in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same treaty and Article
XIV of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (hereinafter the “American
Declaration”). For its part, the State alleged that the petitioners’ claims were inadmissible for
failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
3.
After analyzing the parties’ positions and compliance with the requirements
spelled out at Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, the Commission decided to
declare the claim admissible for the purposes of the examination of the alleged violation of
Articles 8(1), 24, and 25 in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention,
to declare the alleged violations of Articles 9 and 11 inadmissible, and to notify the parties of
this report, order its publication, and include it in its Annual Report to the OAS General
Assembly.
II.

PROCESSING BEFORE THE COMMISSION

4.
The Commission recorded the petition under number P2723-02, and on March
20, 2003 proceeded to transmit a copy of the pertinent parts to the State, which was given
two months to submit information, in keeping with Article 30(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
On August 27, 2003 the State sent its response, which was transmitted to the petitioner with
one month to submit observations. On April 12, 2004, a brief was received from the
petitioners, which was forwarded to the State for its observations. On August 8, 2007 the
request for observations was reiterated to the State.
5.
On November 30, 2007, the Commission requested additional information from
the petitioners, which was received on March 17, 2008. On June 8, 2008, a brief was received
from the petitioners containing additional information, which was forwarded to the State for
its observations. The State submitted its final observations on December 10, 2008. On
November 9, 2009, a brief of additional information was received from the petitioner, which
was forwarded to the State.

Select target paragraph3