him. The petitioner added that the October 1996 judgment of the Constitutional Rights Court had not been implemented.49 58. On April 21, 1998, the Mayor ruled the habeas corpus appeal inadmissible, indicating that the length of detention was reasonable and that the final decisions in the criminal prosecutions had to be awaited.50 59. On August 13, 1998, the Constitutional Court ruled on the appeal filed by Mr. Montesinos’ defense team and ordered his immediate release without prejudice to the continuation of the criminal proceedings against him.51 The Court believed that the time Mr. Montesinos had spent in pretrial detention had exceeded a reasonable timeframe, bearing in mind the punishment he might receive if found guilty.52 E. Challenge to the constitutionality of the Operación Ciclón report 60. In February 1996 Mr. Montesinos filed a complaint with the Chief Judge of the Constitutional Rights Court alleging that the Operación Ciclón police report of July 17, 1992 was unconstitutional. He indicated that as a result of its release, several cases had been brought against him in violation of the principle set forth in Article 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that provides that an individual cannot be prosecuted or punished more than once for the same act. Mr. Montesinos further alleged that the length of his pretrial detention had been unreasonable and that his right to property had been violated because his home had been under National Police administration for several years.53 61. Mr. Montesinos also challenged the constitutionality of several articles of the Law on Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances. He claimed that Article 115 provides for unequal treatment vis-à-vis defendants charged with other crimes in that it does not offer amnesties or pardons. He noted that Article 116 establishes a presumption of guilt insofar as it stipulates that a police report and pretrial statement given by a defendant in the presence of a prosecutor constitute a serious presumption of guilt.54 The alleged victim also claimed that Article 121 violates the right to equal treatment because it provides for discriminatory treatment of defendants charged with drug-trafficking crimes by establishing pretrial detention as a rule, not an exception. He stated that Article 122 departs from the Constitutional standard by requiring judgments issued in drug-trafficking cases to be raised to a higher body, even if they are acquittals.55 62. On March 26, 1996 the Constitutional Rights Court decided against admitting the appeal filed by Mr. Montesinos. The Court considered that the alleged victim had presented an “improper joining of two cases” inasmuch as these cases “require different evidence and produce different effects.”56 63. In light of this, Mr. Montesinos filed a new complaint with the Court requesting that it declare his arbitrary arrest, pretrial detention, and the holding of his property unconstitutional. On April 23 Habeas corpus appeal filed by Mr. Alejandro Ponce Villacís on behalf of Mario Montesinos Mejía on April 14, 1998. Constitutional Court ruling on the habeas corpus appeal filed by Mr. Alejandro Ponce Villacís on behalf of Mario Montesinos Mejía on April 14, 1998 with the Mayor of the Metropolitan District of Quito. 51 Constitutional Court ruling on the habeas corpus appeal filed by Mr. Alejandro Ponce Villacís on behalf of Mario Montesinos Mejía on April 14, 1998 with the Mayor of the Metropolitan District of Quito. 52 Constitutional Court ruling on the habeas corpus appeal filed by Mr. Alejandro Ponce Villacís on behalf of Mario Montesinos Mejía on April 14, 1998 with the Mayor of the Metropolitan District of Quito. 53 Challenge to constitutionality of February 1996, filed by Colonel Mario Montesinos Mejía with Dr. Ernesto López, Chief Judge of the Constitutional Rights Court. 54 Challenge to constitutionality of February 1996, filed by Colonel Mario Montesinos Mejía with Dr. Ernesto López, Chief Judge of the Constitutional Rights Court. 55 Challenge to constitutionality of February 1996, filed by Colonel Mario Montesinos Mejía with Dr. Ernesto López, Chief Judge of the Constitutional Rights Court. 56 Resolution No. 088-96-CA, adopted on March 26, 1996 by the Constitutional Rights Court, regarding the complaint filed by Mr. Mario Montesinos Mejía with the Chief Judge of the Superior Court of Justice of Quito. 49 50 10