The violation of the right to life and
personal integrity in the context of state abuse of power
Lesly Nicole Alcocer Cevallos[*]
Fernando Eduardo Paredes Fuentes*
Abstract
Ecuador case is to assess the human
rights violations suffered by the victims, specifically regarding acts of
torture, cruel and inhuman treatment, as well as the lack of investigation and
due diligence within the Ecuadorian judicial system. The research problem arises
from the declining actions of the Ecuadorian government and its judicial
system, as well as the weak enforcement of existing laws and the guarantees
established by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The objective is to
determine whether there was a lack of investigation and judicial diligence, as
well as compliance with the reparations and non-repetition measures established
by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. This analysis employs qualitative
methods, including documentary review of expert evidence, witness statements,
and medical reports presented during the judicial process. The main results of
the analysis indicate documented violations of the victims' personal integrity,
who were subjected to torture and degrading treatment. It is also concluded
that the Court ordered restitution, reparations, and human rights training for
state officials.
Keywords: Abuse; Power; State; IACHR; Laws.
La violación del derecho a la vida y a la integridad
personal en contexto de abuso de poder estatal
Resumen
El
propósito del análisis del caso Herrera Espinoza vs. Ecuador es evaluar las
violaciones a los derechos humanos sufridas por las víctimas, específicamente
en relación con actos de tortura, tratos crueles e inhumanos, así como la falta
de investigación y debida diligencia en el sistema judicial ecuatoriano. El
problema de investigación surge en el decadente actuar del gobierno ecuatoriano
y su sistema judicial así mismo en el débil cumplimiento de la norma existente
y las garantías propuestas por la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. El
objetivo es evidenciar si existió una falta de investigación y diligencia
judicial, así como el cumplimiento de las medidas de reparación y garantías de
no repetición establecidas por la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos.
Para este análisis se emplearán métodos cualitativos como la revisión
documental de pruebas periciales, testimoniales y médicas presentadas durante
el proceso judicial. Los principales resultados del análisis indican que se
documentaron violaciones a la integridad personal de las víctimas, las cuales
fueron sometidas a torturas y tratos degradantes. Así mismo, se concluye que la
Corte ordenó medidas de restitución, reparación y capacitación en derechos
humanos para funcionarios estatales.
Palabras
clave: Abuso; Poder; Estado; CIDH; Leyes.
Received : 5-1-2025
Approved: 10-1-2025
INTRODUCTION
The case of Herrera Espinoza et al. v. Ecuador addresses
key issues regarding the protection of human rights in contexts of detention
and judicial processes in Latin America. In the social sphere, it highlights
the challenges of anti-drug policies, the abuse of pretrial detention and the
practice of torture in judicial systems. From a legal perspective, it
highlights the importance of guaranteeing the rights established in the
American Convention on Human Rights and other international instruments, as
well as the obligation of States to investigate and punish serious violations
such as torture and arbitrary detention.
This case reveals multiple failures to comply with
international standards, such as the systematic use of torture and cruel
treatment during detentions, the lack of effective investigations into
allegations of torture and procedural violations, and the ineffectiveness of
judicial protection mechanisms, such as habeas corpus. In addition, there were
unjustified delays in the processing of the case, which compromised access to
justice for both the victims and the State.
It is essential to analyze the implications of
these state practices, especially in cases of detentions for drug-related
crimes, as well as to evaluate the effectiveness of domestic and international
legal measures to guarantee reparations for the victims. It is also necessary
to propose legal reforms and public policies that prevent the repetition of
similar violations, strengthening the protection of fundamental rights.
The repercussions of the case of Herrera
Espinoza et al. v. Ecuador are significant in both the national and
international legal framework, especially in relation to the State's
obligations to protect the rights to life and personal integrity. The analysis
will focus on the measures adopted by Ecuador to prevent impunity in cases of
extrajudicial executions and forced disappearances, and on the implications of the
IACHR ruling for future legal and judicial reforms in the area of human rights.
The lack of effective investigations into acts of
torture and procedural violations perpetuates impunity. In addition, judicial
protection mechanisms, such as habeas corpus, do not adequately fulfill their
function of guaranteeing the rights of detainees. These problems are reflected
in unjustified delays in the processing of cases, directly affecting access to
justice.
To prevent future violations, measures must be
adopted that include reforms to the judicial system, the creation of
accountability mechanisms and the strengthening of institutions charged with
protecting human rights.
This case highlights the main problems of the
Ecuadorian judicial system and highlights the human rights violations committed
in this context. Its repercussions, both nationally and internationally,
highlight the need for reforms in public policy, justice and the promotion of
fundamental rights. The effective protection of human rights must be a priority
objective to prevent future violations and guarantee reparations to victims.
METHODOLOGY
The research was developed using qualitative
methods and rigorous documentary analysis, fundamental tools for examining the
human rights violations committed in the case of Herrera Espinoza et al. v.
Ecuador. The documentary analysis included an exhaustive review of official
sources, such as documents issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights,
the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and Ecuadorian state entities.
Among the documents analyzed were medical reports that evidenced physical signs
of torture in the victims, judicial records that confirmed the arbitrary
deprivation of liberty, and official documents that detailed the State's
inaction in the investigation of the complaints filed.
In addition, the analysis of testimonies of
victims, witnesses and experts in human rights and criminal law was used. These
testimonies were essential to understand the circumstances in which the events
occurred, to identify the responsibilities of the State and to evaluate the
psychological and physical impact of the acts of torture and cruel treatment.
The incorporation of these testimonies enriched the qualitative analysis by
providing direct evidence of human rights violations.
The study also adopted a critical-propositive approach, which was not only limited to
identifying the violations committed, but also advanced in the formulation of
concrete proposals for the comprehensive reparation of victims and the
prevention of future violations. Among the proposals were the need to reform
the Ecuadorian justice system to guarantee its independence and impartiality,
strengthen the training of judges and prosecutors in international human rights
standards, and ensure that victims have effective access to judicial remedies
to protect their rights.
The use of these methods and approaches was
supported by a solid normative framework based on international human rights
instruments, principally the American Convention on Human Rights and the
Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. These treaties not only
served as a reference to identify the international obligations breached by the
Ecuadorian State, but also provided clear criteria for assessing the gravity of
the violations committed.
Finally, the consultation of specialized
bibliography on human rights and international criminal law strengthened the
legal argumentation, making it possible to link the facts analyzed with
recognized international standards. This robust theoretical framework
contributed to legitimize the research findings and to formulate well-founded
recommendations aimed at guaranteeing the non-repetition of these practices and
promoting the effective protection of human rights in the national and
international context.
RESULTS
According to national
regulations and international treaties signed by
Ecuador, human rights constitute a set of fundamental guarantees aimed at
protecting the dignity, freedom and well-being of all persons, without
discrimination of any kind (American Convention on Human Rights, 1969;
Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador, 2008).
We can conceptualize
personal freedom as:
A human and fundamental
right, and is recognized at the highest normative level, and must be protected
against arbitrary arrests, convictions or detentions, so that personal freedom
is basically without any doubt a right that
safeguards and protects the human being, which must be protected against all
those acts that without legal basis and capriciously transgress it. For this
reason, the authorities must be aware of the obligations that have with respect to this right, as well as the guidelines to which
they must adhere in the eventualities that may arise (SIJUFOR, 2021).
In the case of Herrera
Espinoza et al. v. Ecuador, the Court found serious violations of the right to
personal liberty, enshrined in Articles 7(1), 7(2),
7(3), 7(4), 7(5) and 7(6) of the American Convention on Human Rights. The case
involves the victims Herrera, Jaramillo, Domingo and Cano, who were detained in
the framework of "Operation Linda", a police operation against drug trafficking. These arrests were marked by irregularities
that compromised their right to personal liberty.
The arrests of the victims
were carried out outside of established legal procedures. The operation lacked
clear grounds and was based on confidential
information, which allowed the authorities to act arbitrarily. Pre-trial
detention was unjustifiably prolonged, being used as an anticipated sanction
instead of a precautionary measure, in contravention of international
standards. This situation evidenced an improper use
of the penal system to punish people without a definitive sentence.
Furthermore, in some cases
the victims were not informed in a timely manner of the reasons for their
detention, violating their right to know the charges against them. This situation particularly affected Mr. Revelles, who had difficulty
exercising his right to an adequate defense. The arrests were not supervised by
a competent judge, and noted the lack of judicial action in response to
complaints of irregularities in the arrests and in
the treatment received by the victims.
Right to personal integrity
The right to personal
integrity is a fundamental right that protects the dignity and well-being of
all persons, prohibiting any form of physical or psychological violence that affects their physical or mental integrity. This right is
enshrined both in the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador (2008) and in
various international treaties, including the American Convention on Human
Rights (1969) and the United Nations Convention
against Torture (1984), which establish the absolute prohibition of torture,
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
The violation of this right,
enshrined in Article 5 of the American Convention on Human Rights, was central
to the case. This article protects people against
torture and ill-treatment, and guarantees their dignity, especially when they
are in state custody. During their detention and subsequent deprivation of
liberty, the victims were subjected to acts of torture and cruel and inhuman
treatment by the Ecuadorian authorities.
The persons involved
reported having been repeatedly beaten by police officers during
interrogations, in addition to being subjected to threats, intimidation and
humiliating treatment in order to obtain confessions or information. These practices were aggravated by the
precarious conditions of confinement, characterized by lack of hygiene,
inadequate food and lack of medical care, which increased the physical and
emotional suffering of the victims (Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 2016).
This situation was
compounded by the lack of judicial protection, as the victims did not have
effective access to legal remedies to defend their rights. The judicial system
did not act efficiently, impartially or diligently to investigate allegations of torture. No sanctions were imposed on
those responsible, perpetuating impunity and aggravating the consequences of
the violations committed.
This context reveals a
structural problem related to impunity and lack of access to justice in cases of torture and human rights violations. According to
the UN Convention against Torture (1984), States have the obligation to conduct
thorough investigations and punish those responsible for these acts. However,
the omission of these investigations constitutes a
direct violation of the right to justice and reparation for the victims,
consolidating a climate of impunity that facilitates the repetition of these
practices.
Right to judicial guarantees
According to the American
Convention on Human Rights on judicial guarantees:
"Everyone is entitled to a
hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent,
independent and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the
determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal or any other
nature. (Art.8)"
As is universally known,
everyone has the right to a fair trial. This includes the right to be heard,
every person must be able to present his case before a judge or court with the guarantee that the process will be carried out
with due guarantees, that is to say, in a fair manner and in accordance with
the law. It is important that the process consists of a reasonable period of
time and with the deadlines determined by law,
likewise the judge must be a competent and impartial judge and be previously
established by law. This right applies to criminal cases, as well as to the
resolution of civil, labor or other disputes.
But why is it considered that this right was
violated? While the present case is based on the fact that the
gentlemen were subjected to both legal and physical situations that influenced
this case to become so well known, the main thing was that they were subjected
to a judicial process that was neither independent
nor impartial, since it was based on evidence obtained under duress, including
forced confessions through torture and ill-treatment. The use of this evidence
affected the impartiality of the court, as clear allegations that the evidence
was obtained illegally were ignored.
The victims' confessions
were obtained under physical and psychological torture, and yet they were
admitted as evidence against them. This constitutes a direct violation of the
principle of exclusion of evidence obtained under duress. Also during the trial, the victims did not receive an adequate defense. In some
cases, requests for consular assistance that were essential to ensure an
effective defense were ignored, especially since some victims were foreigners.
This left the victims in a situation of unprotection, aggravated by their
initial incommunicado detention.
Right to effective judicial
protection
Mera & Mendoza (2017)
contemplate that:
The right to effective
judicial protection is closely related to justice as a human aspiration. Thus,
justice has become one of the goals of all the States
of the world, which is why they must implement all the necessary public
policies to make it effective, considering that it is part of the development
of nations and allows the realization of human beings. (p.8).
Understanding what the
author mentions, the right to effective judicial protection means that all
persons have the right to have access to justice in a real and effective
manner, so that their rights are respected and protected. This right is closely
linked to the idea of justice, which is a fundamental
human aspiration. Justice is so important that it is considered one of the main
objectives of all countries in the world. For this reason, States must take
measures and create public policies that ensure that
justice is accessible to all. This not only helps the progress of nations, but
also allows people to fully develop in society.
The Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, Article 10, states: "Everyone is entitled in full equality
to a fair and public hearing by an independent and
impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of
any criminal charge against him" (United Nations [UN], 1948).
This implies that everyone
must be given a fair and equal hearing before an independent - without external pressure - and impartial - without
favoritism or bias - tribunal. This principle is applicable both in the
resolution of conflicts related to rights and obligations, as well as in the
evaluation of any criminal accusation.
The Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador (2008) recognizes effective
judicial protection by stating that:
"Every person has the right
to free access to justice and to the effective, impartial and expeditious
protection of his rights and interests, subject to the principles of immediacy and celerity; in no case shall he be
left defenseless. Failure to comply with judicial decisions shall be punished
by law. (Art.75)"
Principle of legality and
retroactivity
According to the American
Convention on Human Rights (ACHR), it mentions that:
No one may be convicted for
acts or omissions which at the time of their commission were not criminal
according to the applicable law. Nor may a heavier penalty be imposed than that
applicable at the time of the commission of the offense. If subsequent to the commission of the crime the law provides for the
imposition of a lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit therefrom. (Art.9)
Now, a person cannot be
convicted for acts that were not crimes at the time they were committed.
Moreover, a more severe penalty may not be imposed
than that provided for by law at the time the crime was committed. If after the
crime is committed the law is changed and a lighter penalty is established, the
offender is entitled to be tried with that lighter penalty.
This is one of the most important principles developed in the case of Herrera
vs. Ecuador, since the citizens in question have suffered from an accusation
obtained based on situations that have not occurred, causing a rejection and a
mismatch to legality and going against it.
In the case of "Herrera
Espinoza et al. v. Ecuador," this principle of legality was central. In
August 1994, Herrera Espinoza, Jaramillo Gonzalez, Cano and Domingo Revelles were arrested during an
anti-narcotics operation in Ecuador. As has already
been centrally detailed in this investigation their detention was wrongful, but
by addressing this principle the situations they were forced into served as the
basis for their prosecution and conviction, which contravenes the principle that no one can be convicted without legally obtained
evidence.
Arbitrary Detention
In the case of Herrera
Espinoza et al. v. Ecuador, the arbitrary detention of the victims was one of
the central points that led to the condemnation of the Ecuadorian State for violation of Article 7(2) of the American Convention
on Human Rights, which guarantees that no one may be deprived of his or her
liberty except for reasons and in accordance with procedures established by
law.
The victims, Jorge Eliécer Herrera Espinoza, Luis
Alfonso Jaramillo González, Eusebio Domingo Revelles and Emmanuel Cano, were arrested on August 2,
1994 during a police operation called "Operation Linda", which
investigated international drug trafficking. However, this arrest had multiple irregularities. The arrests were based on
classified information provided to the police, without prior judicial warrants
to support these actions.
It is important to point out
that the characteristics and elements that make up an illegal, arbitrary and illegitimate detention may vary according to the
perspective from which its nature is analyzed, since not all detentions pursue
the same purpose or are executed in the same way. Nevertheless, there is a set
of fundamental elements that must be considered as
determinant to define this type of acts (Supreme Court of Justice, 2023).
Based on what the author
mentions, we can note that not all detentions are the same, nor do they have
the same purpose, nor are they carried out in the same way. There are certain key elements that must be considered to define
whether a detention is illegal, arbitrary or illegitimate. But in spite of
this, the defendants did not respect the basic rights of the detainees, such as
being informed immediately of the reasons for their
detention.
Some victims were not
informed clearly and immediately about the reasons for their detention and the
charges against them. This particularly affected Mr. Revelles, who did not have an adequate defense in the
early stages of the process. There was no timely
judicial review of the detentions to ensure their legality. The Court
emphasized that judicial oversight is essential to avoid abuses of power. The
detentions took place in the context of the application of anti-drug policies
in Ecuador, which, according to the analysis of the
case, were characterized by discriminatory treatment of foreigners, such as the
victims, who were Colombian, Spanish and French nationals.
The victims faced long
periods of pretrial detention under inhumane conditions, including physical and psychological torture. Irregularities in the
judicial process perpetuated the situation, as the authorities failed to remedy
the abuses committed since the initial detention. Although pre-trial detention
is a precautionary measure that involves keeping a
person in custody prior to trial to ensure that he or she does not interfere
with the investigation or evade justice. However, this measure should be
exceptional and applied only when strictly necessary. In many cases, victims
face long periods of pretrial detention without a
final sentence. These prolonged periods can be unjustified or abusive, as
pretrial detention is sometimes used excessively and indiscriminately, without
demonstrating the real need for the measure. Living conditions in prison in these cases are often inhumane, including
overcrowding, lack of access to adequate medical care, insufficient food, and
even physical and psychological violence.
According to the Convention
against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment (1984), it is established that:
"Each State Party shall
ensure in its legal system that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress
and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation, including the
means for as full rehabilitation as possible. In the
event of the death of the victim as a result of an act of torture, his dependants shall be entitled to
compensation" (art. 14).
Torture and cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment.
Torture and cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment constitute one of the most
serious violations of human rights, violating the dignity and integrity of
individuals. The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984) establishes certain guidelines that each State must comply with to prevent such
situations and not only these but also every human being, as well as the
imposition of sanctions on those responsible. In the case of Herrera Espinoza
et al. v. Ecuador, acts of torture were evidenced during
the process faced by those involved. This analysis highlights the importance of
guaranteeing justice, preventing impunity and strengthening the mechanisms for
the protection of fundamental rights. .
According to the Convention
Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
(1984) recommends:
Each State Party shall
ensure in its legislation that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress
and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate
compensation, including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible. In
the event of the death of the victim as a result of an act of torture, his dependants shall be entitled to
compensation (Art.14).
The purpose of the general comment is to help States that are party to the Convention
against Torture understand their responsibilities under Article 14 of the
Convention. This article states that:
State obligations: States
must ensure, through their laws, that victims of torture are entitled to redress and fair and adequate compensation.
It includes rehabilitation:
This reparation should include means to achieve the fullest possible
rehabilitation of the victims.
Universal application: The
article applies to all victims of torture and
ill-treatment, regardless of their origin or other conditions, guaranteeing
equality and non-discrimination.
Thus, for a human being
suffering from such damages can cause irreversible traumas that although there
is a monetary reparation this often does not fulfill
the role of forgetting what happened, on the contrary, this can generate a
resignation on the part of people who have suffered some kind of abuse and that
as the days go by have not managed to erase the unpleasant moment they have
spent during that time.
In the sentence under study
there are several factors to develop in which we consider torture as any
intentional act that causes severe pain or suffering, whether physical or
mental, for specific purposes, such as obtaining information or confessions, punishing someone for something they did or are
suspected of doing, and intimidating, coercing or discriminating against a
person. Torture always involves the participation, consent or tolerance of a
public authority (such as a government official). It
is considered one of the most serious human rights violations (Semanate,2015).
On the other hand, cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment can be considered as actions that, while not
rising to the level of torture, also cause significant physical or mental suffering. Unlike torture, they do not necessarily
have a specific purpose, such as obtaining confessions, and may include neglect
or abuse that humiliates, denigrates or causes serious harm to a person's
dignity. To understand more fully how such persons
were subjected to such treatment as they were subjected to beatings or physical
abuse without causing extreme suffering, severe humiliation, such as public
acts that undermine dignity, and inhumane conditions of detention (such as
extreme overcrowding or lack of food).
It also highlights acts that
constitute torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, such as detention
and physical and psychological torture in which the victims were subjected to
physical blows and multiple traumatisms, death threats,
including situations in which weapons were pointed at them, cold baths at
night, forced to kneel for hours with their arms raised, stomping and blows to
the abdomen and calves.
These injuries were
confirmed by a medical report dated August 9, 1994, which
confirmed injuries consistent with physical abuse that occurred approximately
eight days prior to the examination. These included contusions, ecchymosis and
damages that caused temporary disabilities and psychological trauma to the
victims. Likewise, the gentlemen reported that they
were held incommunicado for the first six days of the detention, the victims
remained incommunicado, which was considered by the Court as an inhumane act
that aggravated their suffering.
Instead, their confessions
were obtained under duress by forcing them to sign
statements through physical and psychological coercion, including assaults in
the presence of officials such as prosecutors. These facts violate Article 5 of
the American Convention on Human Rights and Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture,
as established by the Court.
Habeas Corpus
The Constitution of the
Republic of Ecuador (2008) establishes that the habeas corpus action is
implemented when:
The purpose of the habeas corpus action is to recover the liberty of anyone who is
illegally, arbitrarily or illegitimately deprived of it, by order of a public
authority or any person, as well as to protect the life and physical integrity
of persons deprived of liberty. (Art. 89).
Habeas corpus is a legal
action designed to protect the right to personal liberty. Its main objective is
to help someone who has been deprived of his or her liberty in an unlawful,
arbitrary without reasonable justification or illegitimate manner that is against the law. This action applies not only when the
detention is ordered by a public authority, but also if any other person
deprives someone of his or her liberty improperly.
In addition to guaranteeing
liberty, habeas corpus also serves to protect the
life and physical integrity of persons who are deprived of their liberty. For
example, if a detainee is being mistreated, tortured or exposed to conditions
dangerous to his or her health, habeas corpus allows a judge to review the
situation and act to protect his or her rights.
After having identified what
habeas corpus is, we can develop and identify it in the present case, thus, in
the case of Herrera Espinoza et al. vs. Ecuador, the Inter-American Court
analyzed the ineffectiveness of the writ of habeas
corpus in the context of the Ecuadorian legal system in force at the time of
the facts, considering several key points such as the presentation of the writ
by Eusebio Domingo Revelles, Revelles filed a habeas corpus on May 19, 1998 before
the Mayor's Office of the Metropolitan District of
Quito, in accordance with Article 93 of the Ecuadorian Constitution of 1998,
which established that this writ should be processed by the mayor or equivalent
authority (Bajaña,2023).
The appeal was rejected on
June 1 or August 25, 1998, and the appeal was
dismissed by the Constitutional Court on November 9, 1998. As a result, it was
considered an inefficiency of the system, the writ of habeas corpus was heard
by an administrative authority, which was contrary to Article 7(6) of the American Convention, which requires a judge or
court to review the legality of the detention. The Court noted that this
structure created obstacles for habeas corpus to fulfill its objective of being
a "simple and rapid" remedy to review the legality of the deprivation of liberty.
Although the Constitutional
Court reviewed the appeal, it did so with significant delay, more than two
months after the initial rejection. This violated the principle of a decision
"without delay" established in the American
Convention. The Constitutional Court's review did not address the international
standards for justifying pretrial detention. The decision was limited to
general criteria, which allowed Revelles' pretrial detention to be
arbitrarily prolonged for more than four years.
Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights
A petition was presented on
October 31, 1994 by Sister Elsie Monge, director of the Ecumenical
Human Rights Commission (CEDHU). Torture, arbitrary detentions and violations
of due process related to "Operation Linda"
in Ecuador were denounced. Here, a decision on the admissibility of a
complaint, petition or appeal was postponed until other relevant aspects of the
case were evaluated.
On April 21, 2003, the IACHR
decided to apply Article 37.3 of its Rules of
Procedure, which allows the admissibility to be deferred until the debate and
decision on the merits of the case. Continuing with the process on August 2,
2012, the IACHR asked whether the grounds for the petition subsisted, as more
than 7 years had passed since the last action.
Receiving a response from CEDHU on September 14, 2012, CEDHU confirmed that the
grounds remained and requested to continue the proceedings, arguing that the
State had not yet investigated the facts.
Following all these events the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on July
17, 2014, the IACHR issued Report No. 40/14, in which it concluded that Ecuador
had violated multiple articles of the American Convention on Human Rights and
the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish
Torture.
Initially a warning was
given in which they were to:
·
Make full
reparations to the victims.
·
Conduct a
serious and effective investigation into acts of torture.
·
Implement
administrative and criminal measures against the responsible officials.
·
Adopt measures
to avoid the repetition of the events.
After issuing
said resolution, the Ecuadorian State was notified on August 21, 2014, the
IACHR notified the State of the report and gave it a period of two months to
report on compliance with the recommendations. After
said time elapsed and upon receiving no response from the Ecuadorian authority,
the IACHR submitted the case to the Court on November 21, 2014, arguing the
need for justice and requesting Ecuador's declaration of international responsibility.
Although Ecuador
has legal norms prohibiting abuse and cruel treatment, these have not been
effective in practice. The State did not implement the recommendations of the
IACHR nor did it develop the necessary programs and mechanisms to prevent human rights violations, especially against persons
deprived of liberty, it was necessary to develop effective systems of oversight
and accountability, particularly to ensure the proper treatment and protection
of the health of persons in prison. The objective was
to avoid the repetition of violations such as those that occurred in the case
under analysis.
Inter-American
Court of Human Rights
The case of
Herrera Espinoza et al. v. Ecuador was notified to the Ecuadorian State and the
victims' representative on February 2, 2015 (IACHR
Court, 2016). The victims were represented by the Ecumenical Human Rights
Commission (CEDHU), specifically by César Duque, while the State appointed
Ricardo Velasco as its principal agent.
On April 6,
2015, the representative of the CEDHU filed a brief
before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR Court), complying with
the provisions of Articles 25 and 40 of its Rules of Procedure. In said brief,
he formulated requests, presented legal arguments and announced evidence within two months from the notification of the case.
Although its allegations largely coincided with those of the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), unlike the latter, it did not request a
declaration of violation of Article 2 of the American
Convention on Human Rights, as the Commission had done when submitting the case
to the Court (IACHR Court, 2016).
The Ecuadorian
State submitted its response on June 26, 2015, in which it included various
preliminary objections, arguing reasons why it
considered that the case should not be admitted or should be dismissed. Among
these exceptions were the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the Court by virtue
of the temporality relating to the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and
Punish Torture, the failure to exhaust domestic
remedies, and the rejection of the violations alleged by the victims (IACHR
Court, 2016).
Subsequently, on
August 19, 2015, both the victims' representative and the IACHR submitted a
brief of observations on the preliminary objections
raised by the State. In said document, they made a well-founded request for
these to be rejected, arguing that they did not fit the facts or the legal
grounds of the case (IACHR Court, 2016).
On December 10,
2015, the President of the Court convened a public
hearing to discuss the preliminary objections and, if necessary, analyze the
merits of the case, reparations and costs. This hearing was held on February
22, 2016 at the Court's headquarters in San José, Costa Rica, and included the
statement of Eusebio Domingo Revelles, as well as the
presentation of the oral closing arguments of the parties and the IACHR (IACHR
Court, 2016).
The IACHR Court
also ordered the receipt of the statement of the alleged victim and of an
expert proposed by the IACHR. The victim's statement
was made on the scheduled date, confirming the facts that occurred in Ecuador.
For its part, on December 15, 2015, the Commission requested that the expert's
statement be made before a notary public instead of in a public hearing, a request that was accepted by the President of the Court as
permitted by the Rules of Procedure (IACHR Court, 2016).
The State
presented its final arguments on March 22, 2016, and the IACHR together with
the victims' representative did the same on March 23, 2016.
Subsequently, the submission of additional documentation was allowed, and the
parties were granted deadlines to make observations. In this context, on May 4,
2016, the Court requested the Ecuadorian State to submit certain regulatory
documents as supplementary evidence, to which the
State responded on May 13 and 25. The IACHR and the victims' representative
presented their final observations on May 27 and 30, 2016, respectively (IACHR
Court, 2016).
The IACHR Court
began deliberation of the case on August 31, 2016,
and issued the final judgment on September 1, 2016. In its decision, it
addressed the preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. The Court
rejected the preliminary objections filed by the State, finding that it had
jurisdiction to hear the investigative omissions
since 1999, the year Ecuador ratified the Convention against Torture. It also
concluded that the domestic remedies were neither effective nor adequate, and
therefore the exhaustion requirement was not met. The Court admitted documentary evidence, testimonial and expert statements,
as well as additional documents submitted by the parties (IACHR Court, 2016).
CONCLUSIONS
After learning
about this case and analyzing the actions of each of the parties involved and
the respective in-depth analysis of each issue that
encompasses human rights violations, in particular torture and cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment, in accordance with the obligations established by
international legal bodies. In this context, several relevant controversies arise regarding the application of
international law and the effectiveness of the measures adopted by States. For
in providing reparation, one of the crucial debates lies in the effectiveness
of such reparation.
While monetary
compensation is a key mechanism, it cannot always
reverse the physical and psychological suffering caused by torture. The
observation that victims of such abuse often fail to forget what happened is
key. The irreversible trauma that results cannot be remedied by financial compensation alone, which raises the need for
comprehensive rehabilitation that encompasses psychological, social and medical
aspects. The controversy arises as to whether the judicial and governmental
systems are really prepared to offer such rehabilitation
in all its complexity (Pontón Buitrón, 2017).
The case of
Herrera Espinoza v. Ecuador shows how the ineffectiveness of judicial remedies,
such as habeas corpus, can perpetuate impunity. Despite the fact that habeas
corpus should be a quick tool to guarantee the
freedom of those who are arbitrarily detained or subjected to abuses, in this
case there was an obstruction in the legal system. The appeal was rejected by
an administrative authority, in contravention of the obligation that it be
processed by a judge. In addition, the delay in
judicial decisions and the lack of effective treatment for victims underscores
a problem of access to justice in the judicial systems of many countries. This
raises a fundamental question: how can States ensure effective and prompt justice for victims of abuse when the legal
mechanisms that should protect them are ineffective or corrupt?
Finally, the
implementation of structural reforms in the justice and security systems
remains an important issue. Although legal norms prohibiting
abuse and cruel treatment exist, they are not always translated into effective
practices within national judicial systems. The lack of effective oversight and
accountability mechanisms to ensure that the rights of persons deprived of
their liberty are respected reflects a contradiction
between international standards and their practical implementation. This
disconnect between laws and their effective enforcement highlights a continuing
challenge for States and the Convention in the fight against torture and other cruel treatment.
The case of
Herrera v. Ecuador evidences the existence of torture, cruel and inhuman
treatment in the Ecuadorian judicial system, as well as the absence of an
effective investigation and adequate judicial remedies for the victims. The lack of due diligence on the part of the State
allowed the violations to the personal integrity of the detainees to go
unpunished, which generated a context of vulnerability and lack of protection
in the judicial proceedings.
This case gives
a clear view of structural problems in Ecuadorian
legislation at the time, highlighting the need for the process to be resolved
exclusively by judicial authorities to ensure the protection of the fundamental
rights of persons deprived of liberty.
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights
emphasized that the victims did not have effective judicial remedies and that
the violations were facilitated by a legal framework contrary to the norm. It
considered that the prolonged processing of the case was not the responsibility of the IACHR, but of the State, which delayed in
providing effective responses and actions.
The
investigation confirms that the available defense resources were ineffective in
guaranteeing the protection of the rights of the detainees. In addition,
procedural irregularities were identified, as well as the use of evidence
obtained under duress and the absence of a fair
trial, which violated the fundamental principles of due process and
unjustifiably prolonged the detention of the victims. The Inter-American Court
of Human Rights ordered comprehensive reparation measures, including
compensation for the victims, as well as the
implementation of human rights training programs for state officials. It also
emphasized the need for structural reforms in the Ecuadorian justice system to
prevent future human rights violations and ensure that arbitrary detentions and acts of torture are not repeated.
REFERENCES
Constituent Assembly of Ecuador (2008). Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador. Quito: Constitutional Tribunal of Ecuador. Official Register No. 449.
Bajaña Rivera, J. M. (2023). La efectividad del habeas corpus como herramienta de
protección al derecho de la libertad personal en Ecuador (Undergraduate thesis).
General Organic Code of Proceedings. (2015). Código
Orgánico General de Procesos. Quito: Corporación de Estudios y Publicaciones.
Committee against Torture (1984). Convention against torture and other cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Adopted and opened for signature,
ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 39/46.
American Convention on Human Rights (1969). Pact of San José. Organization of American States.
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984). United Nations.
Inter-American Court of Human Rights (2016). Case of Herrera Espinoza et al. v. Ecuador: Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations
and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2016. Retrieved from https://www.corteidh.or.cr
Inter-American Court of Human Rights (2018). ABC of the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights: The what, how, when, where and why of the
Inter-American Court.
Mera Ulloa, B. J., & Mendoza Calderón, T. A. (2017). Case of the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights (Herrera Espinoza et al. v. Republic of Ecuador): Violation of the right
to personal integrity, judicial guarantees and the
right to judicial protection.
United Nations (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Resolution 217 A (III).
https://www.un.org/es/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
Pontón Buitrón, P. A. (2017). El derecho de las víctimas a la
reparación integral en el sistema penal ecuatoriano (Undergraduate thesis, Universidad Nacional de Chimborazo).
Semanate Sánchez, F. O. (2015). Employment of the Armed Forces in drug
trafficking control operations and its impact on security in Ecuador: 2009-2012 (Master's thesis, IAEN).
SIJUFOR. (2021, October 2). The right to personal liberty. Retrieved from
https://www.sijufor.org/informacioacuten-relevante-en-materia-juriacutedica/elderecho-a-la-libertad-personal
Supreme Court of Justice of
the Nation (2023). Protocolo sobre la
legalidad de las detenciones en el sistema de justicia penal. https://www.scjn.gob.mx/derechos-humanos/sites/default/files/protocolos/archivos/2023-12/Protocolo-sobre-legalidad-de-detenciones-en-el-sistema-de-%20justicia-penal_0.pdf