D. The inclusion of the “Joffre Aroca” case in the Truth Commission’s report 56. On May 3, 2007, the Truth Commission was created by means of Presidential Decree No. 305, with a mandate to “investigate and clarify and prevent impunity with respect to the violent acts and human rights violations that occurred between 1984 and 1988 and in other periods.” To that end, the objectives of the Truth Commission included: “conducting an indepth, independent investigation into the human rights violations that occurred between 1984 and 1988, and other special cases […],” and “promoting recognition of the victims of the violations and designing reparation policies.” 51 57. On June 6, 2010, the Truth Commission presented its final report, entitled: “Without truth there is no justice.” Said report “presented and analyzed the general results established by the Truth Commission regarding the human rights violations that took place in Ecuador in the period from 1984 to 2008.” 52 58. Thus, the “Joffre Aroca” case was included with the reference number “C 97,” as follows: Extrajudicial killing of young Guayaquil farmer On February 27, 2001, in Guayaquil, at 17th and Alcedo streets, Joffre Aroca Palma was with some friends with whom he was going on an excursion to the beach. His father, Winston Aroca, says that the young people “... were on the corner and as there had been a party about three houses down from where they were standing, a patrol car from the (...) Municipality [of Guayaquil, part of the Más Seguridad plan] passed by] and saw them (…). The police officers got out of the patrol car to ask them what they were doing and asked to see their respective documents. They showed them and the police officers left. They returned about half an hour later, stopped the car and again asked to see their documents. So my son [Joffre Aroca], according to the testimony of someone who was there, said to them: ‘You already asked to see our documents, then you come by again and ask to see them again.’ The officer with the other policeman came over and hit him, he reacted because they hit him, and his friends protested. A [neighbor] lady came up to explain to the police that the boys were waiting to go on an excursion. The police officers grabbed [detained] him and shoved him [into the vehicle], then a woman approached the driver and said: ‘Why are you taking him away?’ They replied: ‘We’re going to take him for a spin because he’s been misbehaving!’ (…) They said then they’d take him to the JP [Judicial Police].” The police officers headed off in the direction of the “Barcelona stadium, they stopped the car, took him [Joffre Aroca] behind the stadium, one police officer came back and the other officer […] stayed with my son. A shot was heard, (…) three or four minutes later the officer trotted back to the car and one of them asked him ‘What happened to the guy we detained?’ He replied: ‘I fired a shot and made him run away!’ They got into the car and went to the JP [Judicial Police] (…).” Shortly after he found out that his son had not gone on the excursion with his friends because the police had detained him, [Joffre Aroca’s] father visited the Judicial Police and hospitals but could not find him. One of the young man’s aunts said that hours later “at three in the afternoon a car approached to ask where the Aroca family lived. I was there at that moment, and I said to them: What’s going on? I’m a member of the Aroca family! They said to me: There’s a young guy in the morgue! I was surprised. ‘What do you mean, in the morgue?’ And they replied: ‘A young guy called Joffre Antonio Aroca Palma is in the morgue!’ They went to the morgue and found that it was indeed the dead body of their relative. They could see that the corpse had a gunshot wound and bruises on the face, a sign that he had been beaten. […] On March 2, 2001, the complaint for the crime of murder was filed before the Fifth Criminal Court of Guayas. […] The officer […] was held in custody at a police barracks. He escaped shortly afterwards, but was recaptured. However, after a year of pretrial detention, he was released due to the delay in the proceedings. While he was at liberty, he received official notice that he had been sentenced to eight 51 1182). Cf. Decree No. 305 of May 3, 2007 (evidence file, volume III, annex 28 to the answering brief, folios 1178 to Cf. Case of Casierra Quiñonez et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2022. Series C No. 450, para. 90. 52 13