Report No. 55 (2015) IACHR. Petition No. 12.236 (Ecuador)

• Petition Number: 12.236
• Report Number: 55
• Respondent State: Ecuador
• Case Type: Admissibility
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Alleged Victim: Fausto René Sisa Péez

REPORT No. 55/15

CASE 12.236

REPORT ON ADMISSIBILITY

FAUSTO RENE SISA PAEZ

ECUADOR

OEA/Ser.L/V/II.156

Doc. 7

17 O. 2014

Original: Spanish

Approved by the Commission at its session No. 2046 held on O. 17, 2015
157^th Regular Period of Session.

Cite as: IACHR, Report No. 55/15, C. 12.236. A.. F.R.S.P.. Ecuador. O. 17, 2015.

www.cidh.org

REPORT No. 55/15

PETITION 12.236

ADMISSIBILITY REPORT

FAUSTO R.S.P.

ECUADOR

OCTOBER 17, 2015

I. SUMMARY
1. On August 10, 1998, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter also, “the Commission” or “the IACHR”) received a complaint filed by F.R.S.P. (hereinafter also, “the petitioner” or “the alleged victim”) wherein he alleged the international responsibility of the S. of Ecuador (hereinafter also, “the S.” or “Ecuador”) for violations of his human rights as enshrined in Articles 5, 7, 8, and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter also, “the Convention” or “the American Convention”), in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. The alleged violations include his arbitrary arrest by the police, reported acts of torture, and the extremely protracted time he was held in pretrial detention in the context of a criminal case in which his lack of ties to the facts underpinning the charges against him had reportedly been clearly established.
2. The petitioner claimed that the police arrested him without a warrant from a competent authority, held incommunicado for two weeks, and threatened with torture in an attempt to get him to incriminate himself and confess to his alleged involvement in a drug-trafficking organization that, according to the authorities, was headed by his brother. In this context, he was reportedly forced to make a statement without having access to a defense attorney. He further stated that the criminal prosecution against him exceeded the time limit set by law manyfold and that he was held in pretrial detention in inhumane conditions for an excessively long period despite the fact that during the proceedings the prosecutor in the case had decided against charging him with a crime. L., he noted he has never received any reparations whatsoever for any of the harm caused to him at both a personal and a family level.

3. The S., for its part, held that the petitioner had not exhausted domestic remedies, as there was a habeas corpus appeal still pending a ruling; it further stated that the petitioner still reportedly had the option to file a last instance appeal or a request for judicial review. In addition, the S. maintained that the large number of defendants as well as other complexities inherent to the criminal case in question made the prolonging thereof reasonable. It also stated that the petitioner had always had access to legal means of defense.

4. A. examining the parties’ positions in light of the admissibility requirements set forth in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, the IACHR decided to declare the petition admissible for purposes of examining the alleged violation of the rights contained in Articles 5 (humane treatment), 7 (personal liberty), 8 (fair trial), and 25 (judicial protection) of the American Convention, in connection with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. The Commission further decided to give notice of this report to the parties and make it public.

II. PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION

5. On August 10, 1998, the IACHR received the petition and assigned it number 12.236. The Inter-American Commission forwarded the relevant portions of the petition to the S. via a communication on December 3, 1999 and requested that it provide a response within two months, pursuant to the provisions of Article 30(3) of the IACHR’s Rules of Procedure. On April 4, 2000, Ecuador forwarded its observations to the Commission.
6. The Commission subsequently received additional information from the S. on July 11, 2000, September 10, 2001, and September 24, 2014. It also received supplementary information from the petitioner on the following dates: O. 2, 2000, May 24, 2001, May 13, 2013, and J. 30, 2014. All communications were duly forwarded to the other party. W. processing this petition, the Inter-American Commission, in accordance to article 42.2 of its Rules of Procedures, asked the petitioner, via a note dated February 15, 2013, to provide up-to-date information, indicating that should such information not be forthcoming, it might proceed to archive the petition pursuant to Article 48(1)(b) of the Convention and 42 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. As already noted, the petitioner responded to such request via communication on May 13, 2013.
III. POSITION OF THE PARTIES
A. Position of the Petitioner
7. The petitioner reports that on February 21, 1995, he was illegally and violently arrested at his home in the city of Imbabura by a group of heavily armed police who reportedly searched his house without a warrant from a competent authority. He was later taken to the city of Guayaquil, where he was allegedly held incommunicado for 15 days, during which time he claims to have been interrogated under threat of physical torture if he did not confess to being involved in the criminal organization to which his brother allegedly belonged (according to the petitioner, his brother reportedly confessed to drug trafficking charges). The petitioner claims that during that time, he was forced to give a statement without an attorney present and that he had to wait 40 days from the time of his arrest to appear before the trial judge.
8. The petitioner further states that via a judicial decision that lacked sufficient evidence and grounds, he was ordered into pretrial detention, which lasted a total of 43 months (when this petition was filed with the IACHR, 42 months had already elapsed). He points out that his pretrial detention lasted that entire time despite the fact that on O. 16, 1996 —20 months after pretrial detention had been ordered— the prosecutor for the case had decided against charging him as there was no evidence against him. Following a second prosecutorial ruling along the same lines, which was issued on August 15, 1997, this decision was reportedly upheld by the judge handling the case. The judge in question —Fourth Judge of the Guayas Criminal Court— issued a temporary stay on December 1, 1997. H., her ruling reportedly did not result in the release of the petitioner since, in keeping with the Law on Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances (Articles 121 and 122), it had to be elevated to the Sixth Chamber of the Honorable High Court of Justice of Guayaquil for consultation.
9. The petitioner points out that in accordance with domestic law, the criminal case should not have lasted more than six months, and thus his right to a speedy trial had clearly been violated.
10. He further notes that despite the aforementioned pronouncements by both the prosecutor and the judge, no decision had yet been rendered on the habeas corpus appeals filed with the M. of Guayaquil on J. 12 and 18, 1998, and with the Constitutional Court on July 31, 1998.
11. The petitioner claims the alleged unjust and prolonged deprivation of liberty caused him serious harm in terms of his family as well as irreversible damage to his personal and professional life and plans. He further alleges that while detained, he was held in cruel, inhuman, and degrading conditions in which his life was in constant jeopardy.
12. In his most recent communications —from 2013 and 2014— the petitioner states that despite all of his legal appeals and claims, he has reportedly not been compensated for the time he was deprived of his freedom while innocent, or for the conditions in which he was held, or for the harm allegedly caused to his honor, his family, and his professional career.
B. of the S.
13. Ecuador stated that on September 1, 1998, the Sixth Chamber of the High Court of Justice of Guayaquil definitively dismissed the case against the alleged victim and other co-defendants, and that such decision was executed on September 4, 1998, the date on which the petitioner was reportedly released.
14. With respect to the alleged delay in the processing of the case, the S. noted that a large number of individuals suspected of having been involved in international drug trafficking and related activities such as document counterfeiting, conversion of property, money laundering, and illicit enrichment were investigated as part of it. In the end, this process allegedly resulted in a legal case file of more than 23 volumes or “bodies.” Thus, numerous steps reportedly had to be taken and related criminal cases run simultaneously, all of which resulted in a reasonable prolongation of the main case. C., according to the S., no violation of the Convention occurred in this regard.
15. In the information it sent on J.6., 2000, Ecuador maintained that the petitioner had not exhausted domestic remedies under the terms provided for in ...