19 legs from cigar burns, round and deep. He deemed that Mr. Tibi’s physical problems, which included beatings, malnutrition, stress, and bad posture, were the direct result of prison conditions. The treatment applied to Daniel Tibi focused on increasing flexibility and mobility of the spinal cord through manipulation. He taught him relaxation techniques, with the aim of improving his sleep. Through the treatment, the mobility of the back and neck improved, but he was unable to fully restore the mobility field due to the severe damage suffered. The headaches only diminished. He recommended immediate psychological treatment for Daniel Tibi, taking into account that there were drastic changes in his emotions. c) Testimony of Laurent Rapin, French Ambassador to Ecuador at the time of the facts He was the French Ambassador to Ecuador from April 1993 to July 1997. He heard about Daniel Tibi’s detention through his family and his attorney, and also through the Ecuadorian authorities. He does not recall the date of the official notification to the French Embassy by the Ecuadorian State. He was never informed that he had been tortured, and he pointed out that this point could be corroborated by Mrs. Durin, French Honorary Consul in Guayaquil at the time, but he certified that the conditions of detention were precarious and difficult. Personally, together with the consul and other officials of French institutions, he regularly addressed Ecuadorian authorities to request that normal and legal trial procedures be implemented in the case of Daniel Tibi. As a consequence of the separation among the branches of government, the decision was up to the judges, who did not answer his request. The main object of his official actions had to do with delays in the proceeding. He deemed that keeping Mr. Tibi in prison without trial for such a long period was a time-related denial of justice. d) Testimony of expert witness César Banda Batallas, an attorney In criminal proceedings for crimes defined in the Law on narcotics and psychotropic substances [Ley de Sustancias Estupefacientes y Psicotrópicas] (hereinafter “LSEP”) in force in 1995, actio popularis was allowed to file complaints of violations. In those cases, the law did not accept bail bond, suspended sentence, pre-release, controlled release, or the benefits of the law on commutation of sentence and on pardon. The police report and the statement and the pre-trial statement rendered by the indictee in the presence of the district attorney constitute a “grave presumption of guilt,” provided that the corpus delicti is verified. The judge must follow the rules of competent analysis in the appraisal of the facts and the evidence. In practice, this was not done. The narcotics police report had full evidentiary value. In 1995, the LSEP incurred in “many unconstitutionalities,” such as excessive breadth of the spectrum of criminal definitions, criminalization of consumption, and accumulation of sentences. During the nineties, the narcotics police in Ecuador had structural flaws, such as the lack of appropriate legal guarantees. Furthermore, there were problems due to the high number of drug-related trials in the criminal