IX.
OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS
200.
Therefore,
THE COURT
DECIDES:
Unanimously,
1.
To reject the preliminary objection of “fourth instance,” pursuant to paragraphs 16 and 17 of
this judgment.
2.
To reject the preliminary objection concerning the alleged violation of the State’s right of
defense, pursuant to paragraphs 21 to 24 of this judgment.
DECLARES,
Unanimously, that:
3.
The State is responsible for the violation of the right to personal liberty, presumption of
innocence and equality before the law recognized in Articles 7(1), 7(2), 7(3), 7(5), 7(6), 8(2) and
24 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument,
to the detriment of Jorge Humberto Villarroel Merino, Mario Romel Cevallos Moreno, Jorge Enrique
Coloma Gaibor, Fernando Marcelo López Ortiz, Leoncio Amílcar Ascázubi Albán and Alfonso Patricio
Vinueza Pánchez, pursuant to paragraphs 79 to 117 of this judgment.
4.
The State is responsible for the violation of the rights to the judicial guarantees recognized in
Article 8(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this
instrument, to the detriment of Jorge Humberto Villarroel Merino, Mario Romel Cevallos Moreno,
Jorge Enrique Coloma Gaibor, Fernando Marcelo López Ortiz, Leoncio Amílcar Ascázubi Albán and
Alfonso Patricio Vinueza Pánchez, pursuant to paragraphs 131 to 145 of this judgment.
AND ESTABLISHES:
Unanimously, that:
5.
This judgment constitutes, per se, a form of reparation.
6.
The State shall make the publications established in paragraph 160 of this judgment.
7.
The State shall pay the amounts established in paragraphs 182, 186 and 192 of this judgment
for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, and to reimburse costs and expenses, pursuant to
paragraphs 177 to 181, 184, 185 and 187, 190, 191 and 193, and 194 to 199 of this judgment.
8.
The State, within one year of notification of this judgment, shall provide the Court with a
report on the measures adopted to comply with it, without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph
160 of this judgment.
48