21 ordered, the proceeding is suspended for three years. Termination (definitive dismissal) of the proceeding and of the charges against the accused is ordered when the judge finds that the existence of the crime has not been absolutely proven, or that there are reasons to justify exonerating the accused of liability. After these maximum periods have elapsed, the Judge can order, ex officio or in response to a request by a party to the proceeding, its termination and shelving of the case. Throughout the proceeding, the accused must enjoy the presumption of innocence. In practice, presumption of guilt does not “vanish” in drug-related cases, and it is almost impossible to obtain termination. When the judge orders provisional or definitive dismissal, he must immediately release the accused if he is under preventive incarceration, pursuant to Article 246 of the Criminal Procedures Code. If the Public Prosecutor’s Office appeals the order of dismissal, release is granted on bail, whatever the alleged crime. However, the system imposed by the LSEP was different, as it established mandatory consultation to the High Court, with a prior mandatory and favorable report by the Prosecutor’s Office. This rule did not allow those benefiting from an order of dismissal to obtain immediate release. The number of court-appointed defense counsel was insufficient for the number of cases pending in the districts of Quito and Guayaquil, for which reason their actions and their influence in each of the proceedings was practically null. On the basis of Article 54(5) of the Criminal Procedures Code, the defense counsel of the accused was excluded while procedural statements were made. Ecuadorian legislation does not set forth the obligation of the State to put accused foreigners in contact with the consulate of their country of origin. The expert witness referred to the differences between the “amparo de libertad” or judicial habeas corpus and the constitutional habeas corpus. The crime of torture is not defined in the Ecuadorian Criminal Code. There are definitions of crimes against prisoners and detainees, but they only punish certain acts of torture committed in the prisons of the Republic. The existing definitions of crimes are not in agreement with the requirements set forth in the Inter-American Convention against Torture, and even less so with the obligation undertaken by the State to punish those acts in the terms required by said convention. On the other hand, he referred to inaction of the judicial authorities and of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, even in cases of crimes that should be prosecuted ex officio. He also pointed out that if a forensic medical examination was delivered directly to a judge and it contained unequivocal indications that a crime had been committed, the judge was under the obligation to begin an investigation, ex officio, under the inquisitorial system of the criminal proceeding at the time. Furthermore, when an inmate reported to the Director of the prison or to the National Director of Prisons that he had suffered mistreatment by other inmates or by the prison staff, an investigation should be opened. In actual practice, the statement of the accused, obtained through his preliminary examination statement, had evidentiary value in his favor, without detriment to the fact that other evidence should be obtained to corroborate the preliminary examination statement. These facts were subjected to a final overall examination, applying the rules of competent analysis to impose punishment. In the practice of drug trials, given the instructions to “sink” those accused of drug trafficking, such a statement had little or no weight, and was generally disregarded. The procedural