the consequences of a violation of judicial guarantees.”160 Said measure not only encompasses confessions extracted by means of torture and cruel treatment but “extends to any form of duress” capable of interfering with “the spontaneous expression of a person’s will,” which entails “the obligation to exclude that evidence from the judicial proceeding.”161 As established by the Court, this obligation does not only include evidence that has been obtained directly by coercion, “but also evidence derived from such action.” 162 The purpose of the exclusionary rule is precisely to discourage and prevent the use of unlawful practices under the Convention such as torture and, therefore, it is absolutely essential to abide by said rule. 183. In light of the above, the Commission shall next examine whether the pre-indictment statement given by Mr. Eusebio Domingo Revelles through coercion – deemed above in this report as torture – was used during the proceedings or if it was properly excluded therefrom. 184. The Commission notes firstly that the pre-indictment statements before the police of all of the persons taken into custody were incorporated into police report 134-JEIP-CP1-94. In said report, the Investigating Officer established the involvement of Mr. Eusebio Domingo Revelles as a member of an international drug trafficking ring based on his pre-indictment statement. In view of the report 134-JEIPCP1-94, the Twelfth Judge for Criminal Matters ordered the “instituting of trial proceedings” noting that the facts reflected therein “constitute a punishable offense subject to investigation ex officio.” 185. After issuing the order to institute trial proceedings, two consequential events took place for the purposes of the instant analysis: i) initial statements before the judge were given in which the victims of this case asserted that their pre-indictment statement were given under physical and psychological illtreatment; and ii) the medical certification reports of August 9, 1994, were incorporated into the case file. As was commented above, these events did not trigger the opening of any investigation. Concurrently with this failure to act, the proceedings against Mr. Eusebio Domingo Revelles continued, assigning full probative validity to the pre-indictment statements given by him as well as those by his co-defendants, who also denounced that acts of torture were committed when the statements were given. Furthermore: a. The Office of the Prosecutor referred in his decision to charge (final charging document) of November 30, 1995 to the medical certificates of August 9, 1994; nonetheless, he brought the formal charges against Mr. Eusebio Domingo Revelles on the basis of his pre-indictment statements. b. In the decision of the Thirteenth Court for Criminal Matters of Pichincha of June 14, 1996, whereby the order to open trial proceedings was issued, in subparagraph ‘c’ thereof, the Court found that “in their pre-indictment statements, the defendants indicated the form, the mechanism that was used to transport the drugs to Ecuador;” also, in subparagraph ‘d’ the Court took note that “in these same pre-indictment statements it was told to the investigator the method of concealment [camouflage] that was being used […]”. c. In the Judgment of the Second Court for Criminal Matters of Pichincha of April 1, 1998, which disposed of the trial, the content of the pre-indictment statement of Mr. Domingo Revelles was described and it noted that with his initial statement to the judge “he is attempting to circumvent his involvement in and responsibility for the criminal offense which is the subject of the instant proceeding by claiming facts and circumstances that totally contradict the content of his testimony in the proceedings […].” 160 IA Court of HR. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Supervision of Compliance with Judgment. Decision of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 21, 2013, para. 166. IA Court of HR. Case of García Cruz and Sánchez Silvestre v. Mexico. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 273, para. 58, see specifically footnote 73. 161 IA Court of HR. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Supervision of Compliance with Judgment. Decision of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 21, 2013, para. 166. 162 IA Court of HR. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Supervision of Compliance with Judgment. Decision of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 21, 2013, para. 166. 43