years’ imprisonment, but he is yet to be taken into custody. On May 18, 2004, Joffre Aroca Melgar filed a petition with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. 53 E. Actions of Ecuador’s Public Prosecution Service following publication of the Truth Commission’s report 59. After the case was included in the Truth Commission’s final report, it was assigned to the Truth Commission’s Public Prosecutor No. 2, under the aegis of the Public Prosecution Service. In a memorandum dated July 25, 2019, the Prosecutor’s Office said it had carried out a number of actions, inspected the scene of the events (i.e., next to the Estadio Monumental, formerly known as the “Estadio Isidro Romero”), and ordered that a report be compiled with a reconstruction of the facts for the alleged crimes of torture, illegal deprivation of liberty, and extrajudicial execution. 54 VIII MERITS 60. This case concerns the alleged international responsibility of the Ecuadorian State for “the illegal, arbitrary detention and extrajudicial execution” of Joffre Antonio Aroca Palma on February 27, 2001, and “the situation of impunity that continues to prevail in relation to the facts of the case.” The Court will consider the merits of the case in the following order: a) rights to life, personal integrity and personal liberty, in relation to the obligations to respect and guarantee rights; b) rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, in relation to the obligations to respect and guarantee rights and to adopt domestic remedies; and c) the right to personal integrity of the members of Joffre Aroca’s family, in relation to the obligations to respect and guarantee rights. VIII.1 RIGHTS TO LIFE, PERSONAL INTEGRITY AND PERSONAL LIBERTY, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATIONS TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE RIGHTS 55 61. The Court will proceed to study the various issues raised with regard to the allegations of violations of the rights to personal liberty, life and personal integrity. A. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties A.1. Right to personal liberty 62. The Commission argued that it was an undisputed fact that on the day of the events Mr. Aroca Palma was with a group of friends and, when he asked four police officers who approached them why they were being required to show their identity cards, he was detained. Also undisputed was the fact that no arrest warrant had been issued, and no situation of in flagrante delicto existed that would have justified the detention. 63. The Commission maintained that there was no document authorizing the search to which some of the police officers referred in their statements, claiming that the alleged victim had packets in his possession allegedly containing drugs. Any search would have been carried out after the arrest, so it could not have been the reason for detaining Joffre Aroca and placing 53 Cf. Report of the Truth Commission. Volume IV: Reports of Cases, Period 1989-2008. Ecuador, 2010, pp. 135 and 136. Available at: https://panchurtado.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/tomo4.pdf. 54 Cf. Memorandum No. FGE-GCVDH-2019-00547-M of July 25, 2019, issued by the Public Prosecution Service (evidence file, volume III, annex 29 to the answering brief, folios 1184 and 1185). 55 Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof. 14