Report No. 106 (2014) IACHR. Petition No. 11.777 (Ecuador)

• Year: 2014
• Petition Number: 11.777
• Report Number: 106
• Respondent State: Ecuador
• Case Type: Archive
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Alleged Victim: Diego Patricio Jacome Maldonado

REPORT No. 106/14

CASE 11.777

REPORT ON ARCHIVE

DIEGO PATRICIO JACOME MALDONADO

ECUADOR

OEA/Ser.L/V/II.153

Doc. 22

November 7 2014

Original:English

Approved by the Commission at its session No. 2016 held on November 7, 2014
153 Regular Period of Sessions

Cite as: IACHR, Report No. 106/14, C. 11.777. A.. Diego Patricio Jacome Maldonado. Ecuador. November 7, 2014.

www.cidh.org

REPORT No. 106/14

CASE 11.777

ARCHIVE

DIEGO PATRICIO JACOME MALDONADO

ECUADOR

NOVEMBER 7, 2014

ALLEGED VICTIM: Diego Patricio Jacome Maldonado

PETITIONERS: Centro Ecuatoriano Pro Derechos Humanos y Desarrollo

ALLEGED VIOLATIONS: Articles 5, 7 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights

DATE PROCESSING BEGAN: July7, 1997

1. POSITION OF THE PETITIONERS

1. On July7, 1997, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the IACHR”) received a petition from the Centro Ecuatoriano Pro DerechosHumanos y Desarrollo (hereinafter “the petitioners”) alleging the responsibility of the Republic of Ecuador (hereinafter “the S.”) for the prolonged pretrial detention of D.P.J.M. (hereinafter “the alleged victim”) from August 13, 1990 to September 16, 1997, in a criminal case brought against him under the Drug Trafficking Control Act [Ley de Control y Fiscalización del Tráfico de SustanciasEstupefacientes y Psicotrópicas].¹

2. POSITION OF THE STATE

2. The S. alleged that the petitioners’ claims were inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. In addition, it maintained that “the violation concerning the excessive period of detention” of the alleged victim must be “considered from the time at which the statute of limitations expires in the criminal case.” The Ecuadorian S. further indicated that the reasonableness of the time period should be determined according to “certain specific criteria to be taken into account in the particular case.”

3. PROCESSING BEFORE THE IACHR

3. On July7, 1997, the IACHR received the initial petition and assigned it number 11.777. On January 28, 1998, it forwarded a copy of the pertinent parts to the S., granting it 90 days to submit its observations. In a communication dated May 18, 1998, the S. presented its reply, which was forwarded to the petitioners with a 45-day period for the submission of its observations. The petitioners submitted observations on November 17, 1998, which were in turn sent to the S., which was asked to submit its observations within 30 days. T.S.’s reply was received on January 11, 1999.

4. On August 8, 2005, the IACHR sent a communication to the petitioners requesting updated information on the matter in accordance with Article 26 of the Rules of Procedure in force at that time. On September 2, 2005, the petitioners requested a 30-day extension, which was granted by the IACHR.

5. On A. 9, 2009, and A. 13, 2011, the IACHR requested updated information from the S.. It was received on May 23 and J.2., 2011, and was forwarded to the petitioner for its observations on J. 13, 2011.²

6. On November 2, 2011, the IACHR approved Admissibility Report No. 156/11 in this matter in relation to Articles 5.1, 7, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof. That report was transmitted to the parties on November 8, 2011, and they were given three months to submit their additional observations on the merits.

7. On A. 13, 2012, the Commission reiterated its request to the petitioners for additional observations on the merits. B. its electronic and postal communications had been returned to sender since 2011, the IACHR issued a communication on A. 16, 2014 requesting that the petitioners provide their current mailing address, email address, and telephone number in order to contact them. The communication went unanswered. On J. 30, 2014 the IACHR reiterated its request.

4. GROUNDS FOR THE DECISION TO ARCHIVE

8. Both Article 48.1(b) of the American Convention and Article 42.1 of the IACHR’s Rules of Procedure establish that, during its processing of a petition, the Inter-American Commission shall ascertain whether the grounds for the petition still exist or subsist. If it finds that they do not, it may decide to archive the case file.

9. In the instant case, the petitioners have failed to provide any updated information since November 17, 1998. N. have they replied to the IACHR’s...