In
the Suárez Rosero Case,
the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights, composed of the following judges*
Antônio
A. Cançado Trindade, President
Hernán
Salgado-Pesantes, Judge
Héctor
Fix-Zamudio, Judge
Alejandro
Montiel-Argüello, Judge
Máximo
Pacheco-Gómez, Judge
Oliver
Jackman, Judge
Alirio
Abreu-Burelli, Judge;
also
present,
Manuel
E. Ventura-Robles, Secretary, and
Víctor
M. Rodríguez-Rescia, Interim Deputy Secretary;
pursuant
to Articles 29 and 55 of the Rules of Procedure (hereinafter "the Rules
of Procedure"), renders the following judgment in the instant Case.
I
1. On December 22, 1995, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
(hereinafter "the Commission" or "the Inter-American Commission")
submitted to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter "the
Court" of "the Inter-American Court") an application against
the Republic of Ecuador (hereinafter "the State" or "Ecuador")
originating in a petition (No. 11.273) received at the Secretariat of the
Commission on February 24, 1994. In
its application the Commission invoked Articles 50 and 51 of the American
Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Convention" or "the
American Convention") and Articles 26 et
seq. of the Rules of Procedure then in force.
[1]
The Commission submitted
this Case for the Court to rule as to whether Ecuador had violated, to the
detriment of Mr. Rafael Iván Suárez-Rosero, Articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment),
7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), and 25 (Right to
Judicial Protection), all in conjunction with Article 1 (Obligation to Respect
Rights) of the Convention, resulting from
Mr.
Suárez's arrest and detention in violation of a preexisting law; the failure
to duly bring Mr. Suárez before a judicial official once he was in detention;
the holding of Mr. Suárez in incommunicado detention for 36 days; the
failure to respond adequately and effectively to his attempt to invoke the
domestic judicial guarantees, as well as the State's failure to release him
or show any intention of so doing, within a reasonable time, or to guarantee
that he would be tried within an equally reasonable time to substantiate the
charges brought against him.
The
Commission asked the Court to rule that Ecuador had violated Article 2 of
the Convention with its failure to adopt the domestic legal provisions for
the enjoyment of the aforementioned rights and that
a.- it must adopt such measures as are necessary to ensure Mr. Suárez-Rosero's
release and guarantee an exhaustive and prompt trial of his Case;
b.- it must ensure that violations such as those denounced in the instant
Case do not recur in future;
c.- it must initiate a prompt and thorough investigation in order to establish
responsibility for the violations in this Case and punish those responsible;
and
d.- must make reparation to Mr. Suárez-Rosero for the consequences of the
violations committed.
2. The Commission also asked the Court to declare
[that
t]he exclusion of all persons accused under the Law on Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances from the provision that requires a prompt trial or release, introduced
in Law 04, denies juridical protection to persons in that category, in violation
of Article 2 of the American Convention[.]
II JURISDICTION
3. The Court is competent to hear the present Case. Ecuador has been a State Party to the American
Convention since December 28, 1977, and recognized the compulsory jurisdiction
of the Court on July 24, 1984.
III
4. The instant case was initiated by the Commission on March 18, 1994,
as a result of a petition submitted on February 24 of that year.
On April 8, 1994, the relevant information was transmitted to Ecuador
and it was granted a period of 90 days to furnish whatever information it
considered relevant. The State submitted its reply on August 2, 1994.
5. The State's reply was transmitted to the petitioners on August 12,
1994. On September 15 of that year the Commission held a hearing in the Case,
which was attended by a representative of Ecuador.
6. On September 28, 1994, the Commission placed itself at the disposal
of the parties to initiate the friendly-settlement proceeding provided for
in Article 48(1)(f) of the Convention.
7. No friendly settlement having been reached, on September 12, 1995,
the Commission adopted report 11/95 which established in its final paragraphs
that:
1.
On the basis of information produced and the observations made, the
Commission decides that in the case of Mr. Iván Rafael Suárez-Rosero the State
of Ecuador had not fulfilled the obligation set forth in Article 1 of the
Convention to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein.
2.
The Commission maintains that in the present Case the State of Ecuador
has violated and continues to violate Mr. Iván Suárez right to personal liberty
established in clauses 1 to 6 of Article 7; his right to a fair trial pursuant
to Article 8(2) in general, and clauses (d)
and (e) in particular. The State has violated his right to humane treatment
provided for in Article 5(1) and (2); and his right to judicial protection
enshrined in Article 25. The State
has also contravened Article 2 with the exclusionary provision of Article
114 (sic) of the Criminal Code.
3.
The Commission also condemns Mr. Suárez's prolonged preventive detention
and recommends that the Government:
a.
adopt such measures as may be necessary to release him without prejudice
to the continuation of his trial;
b.
adopt effective measures to guarantee the thorough and prompt trial
of this case, and the measures necessary to ensure that such violations are
never repeated in future;
c.
institute forthwith a full inquiry to determine responsibility for
the violations in this Case;
d.
award Mr. Suárez reparation for the injuries suffered; and
e.
adopt the necessary measures to amend Article 114 (sic) of the Criminal
Code so as to comply with the American Convention and give full effect to
the right to personal liberty.
8. This report was transmitted to the State on September 25, 1995, with
the request that it inform the Commission of the measures taken, within 60
days of the date of notification.
9. On November 30, 1995, at the request of the State, the Commission granted
a special extension of seven days for the submission of documents.
Despite that extension, the Commission received no further communications
from the State.
10. As decided at its 90th Regular Session (supra, para. 7), the Commission submitted
the petition in this Case to the Inter-American Court.
IV
11. The application before the Court was introduced on December 22, 1995.
The Commission appointed Leo Valladares-Lanza as its delegate, David
J. Padilla, Assistant Executive Secretary, and Elizabeth Abi-Mershed as its
attorneys, and Alejandro Ponce-Villacís, William C. Harrell, Richard Wilson
and Karen Musalo as their assistants. On
March 12, 1996, the Inter-American Commission informed the Court that at its
91st Regular Session it had appointed Mr. Oscar Luján-Fappiano to replace
Mr. Valladares-Lanza as its delegate in this Case.
12. The application was notified to the State by the Secretariat of the
Court (hereinafter "the Secretariat"), together with its attachments,
on January 16, 1996, following a preliminary examination by the President
of the Court (hereinafter "the President"). On January 19, 1996,
Ecuador asked the Court for a two-month extension for filing preliminary objections
and answering the application. After consulting the other judges of the Court,
on January 23, 1996, the President granted Ecuador a two-month extension for
filing preliminary objections and a two-month extension for answering the
application.
13. On January 29, 1996, the State informed the Court that
it
[was to] be [understood] that it had received official notice of [the] application
when it [was] received at its Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Spanish, which
is its official language under its Political Constitution.
On
the same day the President informed Ecuador that
the
application in this case [was] duly and officially notified to the Republic
of Ecuador on January 16, 1996, pursuant to Article 26 of the Rules of Procedure
of the Court [and that ...] precisely in consideration of the fact that Spanish
is the official language of Ecuador, this Court granted [...] a two-month
extension for replying to the petition and a two-month extension for filing
preliminary objections.
14. On February 27, 1996, the State informed the Court that it had appointed
Ambassador Mauricio Pérez-Martínez as its agent and on April 9 of that year
it appointed Mr. Manuel Badillo-G. as its alternate agent. On April 3, 1997 Ecuador communicated its appointment
of Counsellor Laura Donoso-de León as its agent to replace Ambassador Pérez-Martínez.
15. On May 29, 1996, the State submitted to the Court
certified
copies of note No. 861-CSQ-P- 96 of April 29, 1996, signed by the President
of the Superior Court of Justice of Quito and the judicial decision issued
on April 16, 1996, by the First Chamber of that Court, in which it [reported]
that it [had] ordered the release of Mr. Rafael Iván Suárez-Rosero.
16. On June 7, 1996, Ecuador submitted its reply to the petition in this
case, stating that the evidence it would invoke was "essentially instrumental" and asked
the Court to
[r]efuse
the petition and order it to be set aside, especially since it ha[d] been
irrefutably prove[n] that Mr. Suárez-Rosero [had been] an accessory to such
a serious crime which threatened not only the peace and security of the Ecuadorian
State but, more particularly, the health of its population.
17. On June 10, 1996, the Secretariat, in accordance with the Order issued
on February 2 of that year, in which it decided that it "[would]
admit only such evidence as is indicated in the application and answer",
requested the State to specify which "essentially
instrumental" evidence it would produce in this case. On July 16, 1996, Ecuador presented thirteen
documents as evidence.
18. On June 29, 1996, the Court asked the State and the Inter-American
Commission to report whether they were wished to file, pursuant to Article
29(2) of the Rules of Procedure then in force, other written pleadings on
the merits of the instant Case, for which it granted them until July 17, 1996.
The Commission responded on July 18, 1996, stating that it did not wish to
submit other pleadings at that stage in the proceedings. Ecuador did not respond to the Court's request.
19. On September 9, 1996, Ecuador submitted to the Court a brief in which
it challenged three of the witnesses proposed by the Commission and asked
for three new witnesses to be summoned to the hearings on merits in this case.
On September 11, 1996, the Court issued an Order in which it decided
to "[h]ear the statements of Mr. Rafael Suárez-Rosero, Ms. Margarita Ramadán
de Suárez, and Mr. Carlos Ramadán, the value of which [would] be assessed in the final judgment." That same day, the President informed the State
that the Court had deemed the proposal of oral evidence at this stage of the
case to be time-barred and asked it to clarify whether any of the reasons
that would justify the late presentation of evidence would be applicable to
the proposal made.
20. On October 4, 1996, the State submitted a brief to the Court, in which
it repeated its request that the evidence proposed be allowed, and enclosed
a certified copy of the judgment issued on that date by the President of the
Superior Court of Justice of Quito, in which he declared that Mr. Suárez-Rosero
had been an accessory to the crime of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and
psychotropic substances and sentenced him to two years in prison and a fine
of two thousand times the normal minimum living wage. On February 5, 1997, the Court rejected the
State's proposal of oral evidence.
[2]
21. On March 18, 1997, the President summoned the parties to a public hearing
to be held at the seat of the Court on April 19 of that year in order to hear
the statements of the witnesses and the expert report furnished by the Inter-American
Commission. Likewise, the President instructed the Secretariat to inform the
parties that they could, immediately after that evidence was received, present
final oral arguments on the merits of the case.
22. On April 19, 1997, the Court heard the statements of the witnesses
and the expert witness proposed by the Inter-American Commission.
There
appeared before the Court,
for
the Republic of Ecuador:
Laura
Donoso-de León, agent; and
Manuel
Badillo-G., alternate agent;
for
the Inter-American Commission:
David
J. Padilla, Assistant Executive Secretary;
Elizabeth
Abi-Mershed, attorney;
Alejandro
Ponce, assistant; and
Richard
Wilson, assistant;
as
witnesses proposed by the Inter-American Commission:
Margarita
Ramadán de Suárez;
Carlos
Ramadán;
Carmen
Aguirre; and
Rafael
Iván Suárez-Rosero;
and
as expert witness proposed by the Inter-American Commission:
Ernesto
Albán-Gómez.
23. The following is the Court's summary of the statements of the witnesses
and the expert's report.
a. Testimony
of Carlos Alberto Ramadán-Urbano, brother-in-law of Rafael Iván Suárez-Rosero
On
the night of June 23, 1992, he was informed by telephone that Mr. Suárez-Rosero
had been arrested by the police and was being detained at the Interpol offices
in Quito. He did not know whether Mr. Suárez-Rosero had
had any previous problems with the police.
He was unable to see him personally until July 28, 1992, but took him
clothes and food and exchanged brief notes with him through "pasadores". As of July 28, 1992, when he was able to see
him for the first time, he took his sister Margarita to visit her husband
twice a week. In addition to visiting his brother-in-law, he devoted all his
time to arrangements for securing his release, such as retaining attorneys
and seeing to other formalities. It being a drugs case, the attorneys were
unwilling to take it on, so that numerous visits had to be made before he
eventually found one who would.
b. Testimony
of Margarita Ramadán de Suárez, wife of Rafael Iván Suárez-Rosero
In
June 1992 she was living in Quito with her husband, who worked as a security
agent at the firm of Challenge Air Cargo. They have one daughter born in 1994. On June 23, 1992, she learned that Mr. Suárez-Rosero had been arrested.
She tried to contact a lawyer the next day and went to the Comisión
Ecuménica de Derechos Humanos [Ecumenical Human Rights Commission] (CEDHU)
to seek help and discover how her husband was.
During one of her early visits to his place of detention, she wrote
a few words in a note and gave it to an officer, who later handed her a very
brief note in which she recognized her husband's handwriting. She received his clothes every night and was
struck by the fact that they always smelled strongly of damp. During the entire month that her husband was
held incommunicado she tried to
find an attorney and did so three days before the official police report was
issued. She was not aware that she
could have had access to a public defender nor did she know how many public
defenders there were in Quito in 1992. In her view, the attorney was not guilty
of the delaies in the case nor of lack of interest, and her brother helped
with the arrangements. She was seldomly
allowed to write to her husband between June 23 and July 28, 1992; she would
scribble a few lines on the outside of the bag in which she sent his clothes.
On July 28, 1992, she saw her husband for the first time since his arrest. She was allowed to visit him twice a week from
then on. Mr. Suárez-Rosero was released
on April 29, 1996; the order for his release had been ready 15 days before
but was not executed because the officials charged with doing so kept forgetting
and delaying matters. She has had a
difficult time as a result of this Case; her husband is sometimes extremely
depressed or suffers sudden mood swings.
c. Testimony
of María del Carmen Aguirre-Charvet, former official of the Ecumenical Human
Rights Commission (CEDHU)
In
June 1992 she was working in the legal department of the Ecumenical Commission. Margarita Ramadán made contact with her on June 24, 1992 or thereabouts.
She helped her look for Mr. Suárez-Rosero and, to that end, spoke with
Leonardo Carrión, Adviser to the Minister of the Home Office.
Since this yielded no results, she presented an official note to the
Adviser, who told her that she could not even leave the note in his office
since the case was drug-related and he informed her that Mr. Suárez-Rosero
would be incommunicado for approximately one month.
d. Testimony
of Rafael Iván Suárez-Rosero, alleged victim in this case
He
never saw an arrest warrant. He was apprehended in the early hours of June
23, 1992, together with Mr. Nelson Salgado, by two hooded individuals traveling
in an unmarked vehicle, who informed him that he was being arrested in connection
with a report that the occupants of a "Trooper" were burning drugs
in the Zámbiza ravine. They were taken
to the Interpol offices, where they were placed in the cells at the back. He never saw or discovered the name of the person
who had made the report. He had never taken part in the acts imputed to him.
He was not allowed to inform his family of his arrest. He was imprisoned, and threatened in order to
make him confess to his involvement. He
was beaten throughout the afternoon; a bag was placed over his head and injected
with tear gas; they threatened to place him in an electrified metal structure
and a tank filled with water and accused him of trafficking in drugs; they
threatened to summon his wife and put pressure on her to talk. Within 24 hours of his detention he gave a statement
to the Third Prosecuting Attorney, who did not inform him that he had the
right to a public legal counsel. His
cell, measuring some 15 square meters, in which there were 17 people, was
situated in a basement about two and a half meters below the level of the
courtyard; it was damp and had no windows, ventilation or bed. He slept on
a newspaper for 30 days. He caught
pneumonia and was given a pain-killer and, at the end of his period of isolation,
he was administered penicillin provided by his family. On July 23, 1992, a group of policemen from
the Intervention and Rescue Squad beat him all the way to the courtyard with
other detainees, made him place his hands on the nape of his neck and go down
on all fours, forced him to confess that he was a drug trafficker and beat
him; he was threatened and, after being blindfolded, he was forced to run
around the courtyard. They told him
they were going to kill him. During
the period in which he was held incommunicado
he lost 30 to 40 pounds because he was afraid to eat the food; he became allergic
to certain substances and foods. On
July 28, 1992, he was allowed to see his family. He was held in preventive detention for four years in a cell approximately
four meters by two; he was allowed into the courtyard for four hours each
day. Interviews with his attorney were
always conducted in the presence of a policeman. He never appeared before a court. Since his release he has been in constant fear,
and becomes agitated by the mere sight of police officers.
e. Report
of expert witness Ernesto Albán-Gómez, former Dean and Professor of Criminal
Law at the Pontificia Universidad Católica of Ecuador
An
arrest in Ecuador requires a warrant, with the sole exception of detention
for investigative purposes and detention in
flagrante delicto. Unlawful detention is an offense established
as such in the Criminal Code. Ecuadorian
law allows a 24-hour maximum period for holding a person incommunicado. The maximum period for a detained person to make a statement to a
magistrate is 24 hours, which may be extended by a further twenty-four hours
only at the request of the detainee or because the magistrate deems it necessary.
There is a special law that limits the period of preventive detention to a
ratio of the maximum penalty to which the detainee could be sentenced but,
in discriminatory manner, this law is not applicable to persons accused of
trafficking in drugs or narcotics. The
Law on Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances establishes the presumption of
guilt instead of the presumption of innocence. A police barracks is not the appropriate place
to keep someone in lawful preventive detention, since the law provides that
it is in the social rehabilitation centers established in the Code of Penalties
that prisoners in preventive detention or serving final sentences are to be
housed. The writ of habeas corpus must
be filed in writing; the decision must be taken within 48 hours and, while
the law does not set art the precise deadline within whic the court must call
and hear the person filing the writ, that period could also be 48 hours. In no circumstances does the law permit preventive
detention of an accessory, and the maximum sentence for that crime is two
years in prison. The judge has the
obligation to appoint defense counsel at the preliminary stage of a criminal
case; while public defenders do exist, detainees cannot be said to have effective
access to them. Under Ecuadorian law, the criminal proceeding must be completed
within approximately 180 days. There is systematic delay in the administration of justice, one of
the grave problems of the Ecuadorian judicial administrative system, and even
more so in criminal matters. Over 40
percent of the persons in Ecuador's jails have been detained for drug-related
offenses. Article 20 of Ecuador's Political
Constitution provides that all the political, civil, social, economic and
cultural rights established in the international Conventions, Covenants, or
Declarations are applicable to all persons living in its territory.
24. On June 16, 1997, the Secretariat, on instructions from the President,
informed the State and the Commission that it had set the deadline of July
18, for presentation of final written arguments on the merits of the case.
On July 16, the Commission asked the President for a four-day extension
of that deadline. On July 18, Ecuador asked for the deadline to
be extended until July 31. On July
21, the Secretariat informed Ecuador and the Commission that the President
had granted an extension until August 11, 1997.
25. The briefs containing the final arguments were submitted by the Commission
and the State on July 22 and August 8, 1997, respectively.
V
26. On March 15, 1996, the Commission requested the Court to "[t]ake
such measures as are necessary to ensure that Mr. Iván Suárez-Rosero [was]
released immediately, pending continuation of the procedures." In
support of its request, it alleged that Mr. Suárez-Rosero had been held
in preventive detention for approximately three years and nine months, that
during that period he had not been housed separately from condemned prisoners
and that a court order had been issued for his release.
On April 12, 1996, the Commission requested the Court to expand the
Urgent Measures to include Mr. Suárez-Rosero's wife, Mrs. Margarita Ramadán
de Suárez, and her daughter, Micaela Suárez-Ramadán, owing to an alleged attempt
on Mr. Suárez-Rosero's life on April 1, 1996, and the threats and harassment
to which he and his family have been subjected.
27. By orders of April 12 and 24, 1996, the President asked the State to
adopt, forthwith, such measures as may be necessary to effectively ensure
the physical and moral integrity of Mr. Rafael Iván Suárez-Rosero, his wife,
Ms. Margarita Ramadán de Suárez, and their daughter, Micaela Suárez-Ramadán.
28. On June 28, 1996, the Court decided to close the Urgent Measures inasmuch
as the Commission had informed it that Mr. Suárez-Rosero had been released,
so that his safety and that of his family was not at risk.
VI
29. As attachments to its application, the Commission submitted copies
of 32 documents connected with the Mr. Suárez-Rosero's detention and the criminal
action brought against him by the State. For its part, Ecuador submitted certified copies
of ten court documents referring to the Case against Mr. Suárez-Rosero and
the official authorized text of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic
of Ecuador, and, at the request of the Court, it submitted the official authorized
text of Ecuador's Law on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances and its
Criminal Code. Those documents were
not challenged or contested in the instant Case, nor was their authenticity
questioned, for which reason the Court deems them to be valid.
30. No objections were made either to the statement of witness Ms. Carmen
Aguirre or the expert report by Dr. Ernesto Albán-Gómez. The Court therefore deems the facts stated by
the former and the expert's observations on Ecuadorian law to have been proven.
31. The State, invoking Article 38(1) of the Rules of Procedure then in
force, objected to the Court's hearing the testimony of Mr. Rafael Iván Suárez-Rosero,
Ms. Margarita Ramadán de Suárez and Carlos Ramadán in its brief of September
9, 1996. Ecuador advanced the following
reasons for its objections:
first
because he had been accused in criminal case No. 181‑95 brought against
Mr. Hugo Reyes-Torres for drug trafficking, and was a defendant in that case
as an accessory to the crime. Second
and third, on the ground that they were not qualified as they could not be
independent, they being his wife and brother-in-law, who had a direct relationship
with the principal perpetrator in the instant Case.
On
September 11, 1996, the Court decided to "[h]ear
the statements of Mr. Rafael Iván Suárez-Rosero, Margarita Ramadán de Suárez,
and Carlos Ramadán, the value of which shall be assessed in the final judgment."
32. It is the well-settled jurisprudence of this Court that any interest
which a witness may have in the outcome of a case, is not enough, per se, to disqualify such witness. This principle is eminently applicable to the
evidence given by Margarita Ramadán
de Suárez and Carlos Ramadán. Moreover,
their statements were not contested by the State and referred to facts of
which the witnesses had direct knowledge.
Consequently, those statements must be admitted as suitable evidence
in this Case.
33. With regard to the statement of Mr. Rafael Iván Suárez-Rosero, the
Court considers that, since he is the alleged victim in this case and has
a possible direct interest in it, his testimony should be assessed in the
context of all the evidence in the Case. However, the Court deems it necessary
to make one stipulation on the value of this testimony. The Commission argues that Mr. Suárez-Rosero
was held incommunicado by the State
from June 23 to July 28, 1992. If this
were proven, it would necessarily imply that only Mr. Suárez-Rosero and
the State would be aware of the treatment the former received during that
period. Consequently, they would be
the only ones entitled to present evidence on those conditions in the proceeding.
In that regard, the Court has already established that
in
the exercise of its judicial functions and when ascertaining and weighing
the evidence necessary to decide the cases before it, the Court may, in certain
circumstances, make use of both circumstantial evidence and indications or
presumptions on which to base its pronouncements when they lead to consistent
conclusions as regards the facts of the case (Gangaram
Panday Case, Judgment of January 21, 1994. Series C No. 16, para. 49).
In
accordance with this principle, since it has been proven (infra,
para. 34(d)) that Mr. Suárez-Rosero was held incommunicado during the period
indicated by the Commission, his testimony on the conditions of his incommunicado detention acquires a highly
presumptive value, especially when one considers that the State declared that
it "could not confirm or guarantee
anything" relating to the
treatment meted out to Mr. Suárez-Rosero during the time he was held incommunicado.
VII
34. From an examination of the documents, the witnesses' statements, the
expert's report, and the remarks of the State and the Commission in the course
of the proceedings, the Court deems the following facts to have been proven:
a. Mr. Rafael Iván Suárez-Rosero was arrested at 2:30 a.m. on June 23,
1992, by officers of the National Police of Ecuador, in connection with police
Operation "Ciclón", the
aim of which was to "disband one
of the largest international drug-trafficking organizations", by
a police order issued when residents of the Zámbiza sector of Quito reported
that the occupants of a "Trooper" were burning what appeared to
be drugs (police report of the Pichincha criminal investigation office of
June 23, 1992; statement of Rafael Iván Suárez-Rosero during the inquiry proceedings
of June 23, 1992; answer to the application; testimony of Rafael Iván Suárez-Rosero);
b. Mr. Suárez-Rosero was arrested without a warrant from the competent
authority and not in flagrante delicto
(statement by the alternate agent of the State during the public hearing;
testimony of Rafael Iván Suárez-Rosero; constitutional warrant of imprisonment
No. 158‑IGPP‑04 of July 22, 1992; warrant authorizing preventive
detention, of August 12, 1992);
c. on the day of his arrest, Mr. Suárez-Rosero gave an initial statement
to police officers in the presence of three prosecutors from the Ministry
of Public Affairs. No defense attorney
was present during the questioning (statement of Rafael Iván Suárez-Rosero
during the inquiry proceedings of June 23, 1992; police report of the Special
Investigations Unit of July 7, 1994; official communication No. 510‑CSQ‑P‑96
of the President of the Superior Court of Justice of Quito; testimony of Mr.
Rafael Iván Suárez-Rosero; order Number Seven delivered by the First Chamber
of the Superior Court of Justice of Quito at 10:00 a.m. on April 16, 1996,
seventh paragraph);
d. from June 23 to July 23, 1992, Mr. Rafael Iván Suárez-Rosero was held
incommunicado at the "Quito
Number 2" Police Barracks situated at Montúfar and Manabí streets in
the city of Quito, in a damp and poorly ventilated cell measuring five meters
by three, together with sixteen other persons (police report of the Special
Investigations Unit of July 7, 1994);
e. on July 22, 1992, the Commissioner-General of Police of Pichincha ordered
the Director of the Men's Social Rehabilitation Center to keep Mr. Suárez-Rosero
and other persons in detention until a court had issued an order to the contrary
(constitutional warrant of imprisonment Number 158-IGPP-04 of July 22, 1992);
f. on July 23, 1992, Mr. Suárez-Rosero was transferred to the Men's Social
Rehabilitation Center of Quito (former García Moreno Prison), where he remained
incommunicado for five more days
(constitutional warrant of imprisonment Number 158-IGPP-04 of July 22, 1992;
testimony of Rafael Iván Suárez-Rosero; order delivered by the President of
the Superior Court of Justice of Quito at 10.00 a.m. on July 10, 1995);
g. during the entire period of his incommunicado detention, from June 23 to July 28, 1992, Mr. Suárez-Rosero
was not allowed to receive visits from his family or communicate with an attorney.
During that time, his only contact with his relatives was limited to
the exchange of clothes and scribbled notes, which were censored by the security
staff. This exchange was made possible through "pasadores",
civilians with the means to deliver such things to prisoners (police report
of the Special Investigations Unit of July 7, 1994; testimonies of Rafael
Iván Suárez-Rosero, Margarita de Suárez, and Carmen Aguirre);
h. from July 28, 1992, onwards Mr. Suárez Rosero was allowed to receive
his family, lawyer and members of human rights organizations on his days of
visitors. The interviews with his lawyer
were conducted in the presence of police officers (testimonies of Rafael Suárez
Rosero, Margarita Ramadán de Suárez and Carlos Ramadán);
i. on August 12, 1992, the Third Criminal Court of Pichincha issued an
order of preventive detention against Mr. Suárez-Rosero (constitutional warrant
of imprisonment Number 125 of August 12, 1992);
j. on September 3, 1992, the Third Criminal Court of Pichincha declined
to try the case against Mr. Suárez-Rosero and the other persons detained
in Operation "Ciclón,"
inasmuch of one of the accused in that case was promoted to the rank of Infantry
Major, and transferred the file to the Superior Court of Justice of Quito
(order of the Third Criminal Court of Pichincha issued at 3:00 p.m. on September
3, 1992);
k.. on two occasions, on September 14, 1992, and January 21, 1993, Mr. Suárez-Rosero
requested that the order authorizing his preventive detention be revoked (written
statement of Rafael Iván Suárez-Rosero of September 14, 1992, and written
statement of Rafael Iván Suárez-Rosero of January 21, 1993);
l. on November 27, 1992, the President of the Superior Court of Justice
of Quito ordered the initiation of the first phase of the pre-trial proceedings.
In that order, Mr. Suárez-Rosero was charged with transporting drugs
for the purpose of destroying them and hiding the evidence (initiating order
of November 27, 1992);
m. on December 9, 1992, the President of the Superior
Court of Justice of Quito ordered investigative proceedings to be instituted
in connection with the case; these were held between December 29, 1992, and
January 13, 1993 (statements by Marcelo Simbana, Carlos Ximénez, Rolando Vásquez-Guerrero,
Lourdes Mena, Luz María Feria, and José Raúl Páez; judicial record of September
31, 1992; expert report of December 31, 1992; judicial record of January 4,
1993; judicial record of January 5, 1993; expert report of January 8, 1993,
and expert report of January 13, 1993);
n. on March 29, 1993, Mr. Suárez-Rosero filed a writ of habeas corpus
with the President of the Supreme Court of Justice of Ecuador, under the provisions
of Article 458 of the Code of Criminal Proceedings of Ecuador (communication
from Rafael Iván Suárez-Rosero of March 29, 1993);
o. on August 25, 1993, the President of the Superior Court of Justice
of Quito requested the Public Prosecutor of Pichincha to render his opinion
on Mr. Suárez-Rosero's request to have his detention order revoked (order,
subparagraph m., of the President of the Superior Court of Justice of Quito
of 11.00 a.m. on August 25, 1993);
p. on January 11, 1994, the Prosecutor of Pichincha rendered an opinion
on the request for abrogation of Mr. Suárez-Rosero's detention order (supra,
subparagraph o.), stating that
for
the time being, the police report which serves as the basis for initiation
of the instant criminal case, as well as the preliminary statements, suggests
that the accused [...]: Iván Suárez-Rosero [...] appear[s] to be responsible,
so that it would be improper to revoke the order for [his] preventive detention
(report
of Dr. José García-Falconí, Public Prosecutor of Pichincha of January 11,
1994, line 16);
q. on January 26, 1994, Mr. Suárez-Rosero's request to have the preventive
detention order against him revoked was denied (supra, subparagraph k.) (order of the
President of the Superior Court of Justice of Quito of 10:00 a.m. on January
26, 1994, subparagraph h.). That same
day, the officers who had arrested him were summoned to give statements, but
did not appear, nor did they do so when they were again summoned on March
3 and May 9, 1994 (order of the President of the Superior Court of Justice
of Quito of 1:30 p.m. on March 3, 1994, lines six to 10, and order of the
President of the Superior Court of Justice of Quito of 11:00 a.m. on May 9,
1994, subparagraph e.);
r. on June 10, 1994, the President of the Supreme Court of Justice denied
the writ of habeas corpus filed by Mr. Suárez-Rosero (supra, subparagraph n.), on the ground
that
[t]he
petition presented [. did] not provide any information showing the category
or nature of the proceeding indicating that he was deprived of his liberty,
the district in which the President of the Superior Court of Justice that
had issued the order was located, the place of detention, the date on which
he was deprived of his liberty, the reason, etc., so that it cannot be processed
and is therefore denied and ordered to be struck from the list.
(order
of the President of the Supreme Court of Justice of Ecuador of 9:00 a.m. on
June 10, 1994);
s. on November 4, 1994, the President of the Superior Court of Justice
of Quito declared the preliminary proceedings to be at an end and referred
the case to the Public Prosecutor of Pichincha for his final pronouncement
(order of the President of the Superior Court of Justice of Quito of 11.45
a.m. on November 4, 1994). The prosecutor
was to make a determination, within six days, but there is no record of the
date in which he did so (Art. 235 of the Code of Criminal Proceeding of Ecuador);
t. on July 10, 1995, the President of the Superior Court of Justice of
Quito declared open the plenary phase of the case against Mr. Suárez-Rosero,
on a charge of being accessory to the crime of drug trafficking.
That court also decided that in Mr. Suárez-Rosero's case the requirements
of preventive detention had not been met, and ordered his release (order of
the President of the Superior Court of Justice of Quito of 10:00 a.m. on July
10, 1995);
u. on July 13, 1995, the Public Prosecutor of Pichincha requested the
President of the Superior Court of Pichincha to expand his order of July 10,
1995,