Report No. 43 (2012) IACHR. Petition No. 661-01 (Ecuador)

• Year: 2012
• Report Number: 43
• Petition Number: 661-01
• Case Type: Archive
• Alleged Victim: Pedro Muñoz Ulloa y Miriam García Gutiérrez
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Respondent State: Ecuador

4

REPORT No. 43/12

DECISION TO ARCHIVE

PETITION 661-01

ECUADOR

March 20, 2012

ALLEGED VICTIMS: Pedro Muñoz Ulloa and Miriam García Gutiérrez

PETITIONER: Ernesto López Freire and Alejandro Ponce Villacís

ALLEGED VIOLATIONS: Articles 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 25, and 29 of the American Convention on Human Rights

DATE THE PROCEEDING STARTED: November 8, 2001

I. POSITION OF THE PETITIONER

1. On January 18, 2001, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as “the Commission” or “IACHR”) received a petition filed by Ernesto López Freire and Alejandro Ponce Villacís (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioners”) alleging that the State of Ecuador was responsible for the violation of the rights to freedom, personal integrity and judicial protection during the alleged illegal imprisonment and criminal proceedings against Pedro Muñoz Ulloa and for the absence of reparations for himself and his wife Miriam García Gutiérrez, both of them Colombian nationals.

2. The petitioners alleged that Pedro Muñoz Ulloa was imprisoned by the National Police Force on May 19, 1993, without an arrest warrant ordered by a judge having jurisdiction over the alleged crimes of drug trafficking, unlawful association and money laundering. They alleged that he was taken to the cells of the INTERPOL of Pichincha in Quito, where he was held incommunicado for 13 days in a very small prison cell, which prevented him from lying down and sleep and where he had no light or food, and after that lapse of time he was allegedly taken to the García Moreno penitentiary.

3. The petitioners alleged that, during his detention and first seven days in the penitentiary, his spouse was told he had not been imprisoned and she was permanently being lied to about his whereabouts. They claimed that the alleged victim was able to send his spouse a note informing her of his imprisonment. They contended that, on the fourth day of his imprisonment, during the investigations conducted by the Police, he was required to make a statement without the assistance of his attorney.

4. They claimed that three bills of indictment were ordered against Pedro Muñoz Ulloa, for drug trafficking on May 28, 1993, for money laundering on September 8, 1993, and for unlawful association on September 22, 1993. They alleged that, at the same time, preventive detention was ordered and that the three proceedings were filed later than the 24 hours stipulated by the Ecuadorian Constitution for bringing the accused before a judge. They alleged that, in the three proceedings, the District Attorney refrained from formally indicting Pedro Muñoz, as a result of which the charges were dismissed.

5. They claimed that, despite this, the alleged victim was not released because he had to wait confirmation from the Superior Court of Justice regarding the judgments issued. They alleged that, on June 2, 1997, the Superior Court confirmed dismissal of the charges for drug trafficking. They claimed that, because of the delay in the other two proceedings, Pedro Muñoz and other prisoners started a hunger strike and other protests (which also included a voluntary crucifixion), which lasted more than 80 days, until the dismissals ruled in the two remaining proceedings were confirmed on September 22 and 27, 1997. They claim that, afterwards, the alleged victim was released.

6. They allege that, during the prolonged preventive detention of the alleged victim, both the Colombian Embassy and the Colombian Consulate in Ecuador took steps so that the proceedings would not be delayed unjustifiably. They indicated that Pedro Muñoz was in preventive detention for more than 53 months (four years, five months) before his innocence was confirmed. They claimed that the alleged victim was subjected to a pre-sentencing imprisonment system that prevails de facto and illegally in Ecuador.

7. The petitioners contended that, for this detention, they filed administrative complaints against the President of the Republic, the President of the Supreme Court of Justice and the Attorney General of the State, requesting US$1.5 million as compensation in terms of redress for damages sustained. They claimed that only a lower-echelon employee of the Attorney General’s Office replied, as indicated below:

The mission of the Office of the Attorney General of the State is to intervene in defending government institutions, either as a complainant or as a defendant, for the defense of the Ecuadorian State and its institutions.

… In the present case, the Office of the Attorney General of the State has no jurisdiction over, and is not responsible for, the alleged violations, although of course Mr. Pedro Gustavo Muñoz Ulloa has the right to file any proceedings he believes he might be entitled to.

8. They alleged that, in view of this refusal, they submitted a personal legal action in conformity with the provisions of the Statute of the Judiciary Administrative System of the Executive Branch of Government (Estatuto del Régimen Jurídico Administrativo de la Función Ejecutiva—ERJAFE), (hereinafter referred to as the ERJAFE). They...