SERIOUS HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

The last EPU (2012) recommended that Ecuador guarantees a swift and timely
investigation into cases of abuse committed by the police. The aim was to bring
those responsible to justice and to end impunity, lack of transparency over police
abuse. This requires thorough investigations into all allegations against this
institution including police misconduct, corruption, torture and even extrajudicial
executions.

Similarly, it called for celerity in effectively adopting all measures necessary to

incorporate the international regulations of the Convention against Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the
International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced
Disappearance. On this matter, the following questions are suggested to the
State:

Has a swift, impartial, and timely investigation of police abuse been

guaranteed? Has the objective of taking those responsible to justice and
end impunity been upheld?

At present, only 6 of 136 cases documented by the Commission of Truth have

been taken to court. The Commission of Truths Office, created as part of the
Public Prosecutors office (District Attorney) to deal with these matters, has only
been able to proceed with 2 cases. In one of them, the Damian Pea case, it was
ruled that there was no police responsibility, absolving the police agent involved
and leaving the case in impunity.

Those in charge of the rest of the cases, still in a process of previous inquiry,
have often failed in their responsibility to insist in the need to investigate. What is
more, at times the participation of the victims has been denied. The victims have
denounced a lack of technical capacity by the Commission of Truths Office to
conduct the task, and its inability to maintain international standards. This has
resulted in the re-victimization of the victims and has become a hindrance to the
collaboration with other state entities that provide access to public information.

Has the repair of victims and their families been guaranteed?

Since the approval of the Law of Victims and Adjudication in October 2003, in
cases of Serious Human Rights Violations there has only been 1 agreement for
integral repair, which occurred in September 2016. Even though the Ombudsman
Office has a Repair Programme to facilitate such redress measures, in practice
this is a procedure to be demanded by the victims and their families, without its
pronouncements being biding. Therefore, if the victims dont agree with the
proposed resolutions, no redress will be reached.

The law allows the Ombudsman Office the right to monitor and execute, including
the competence to impose its technical criteria over other state entities. The
Ombudsman Office, however, has so far restricted itself to suggest that other
state entities make visible the petitions of redress, without demanding or
supervising its fulfillment.

Have measures of non-repetition been guaranteed?

 SERIOUS HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

The Ombudsman Office hasnt yet implemented mechanisms of coordination with

the police or military forces to avoid Serious Human Rights Violations in the
future. On the contrary, recent cases suggest ongoing practices against Human
Rights remain in impunity. To name a few, in the last years there have been the
following cases, all of which remain impune: the extrajudicial execution of Freddy
Taish, of Shuar nationality, during a military operation against illegal mining in
2013; the assassination of Jos Tendetza, a Shuar anti-mining activist, on
December 2, 2014; the police torture of the student Angel Ayol during a student
protest on September 17, 2014; and the murder of Francisco Cajigas, last seen in
the custody of police agents. The torturing of several detainees in the Regional
Prison of Turi by members of the polices Special Forces.

Has a swift, impartial, and timely investigation into the disappearance

of persons been implemented? Have any measures been implemented
to avoid repetition?

Even though forced disappearance was included in the Integral Organic Penal
Code, no mention is made on the disappearance of persons without the
acquiescence of the state. The lack of protocols and internal norms in regard to
the disappearance of persons has led to the cases of disappearances be treated
as administrative acts. Such cases demand a secondary investigation process,
different to penal investigation. Thus, for which Prosecutor's Office assumes the
initiation of a criminal investigation, the disappeared person must appear, with
life and as a victim of another crime or his disappearance in death.

In 2016 the Public Prosecutors office (District Attorney) reported that 20.008
disappearances were filed, 1.634 of which are just administrative acts of
investigation. No information has been provided on why or how the rest of cases
were closed. It remains unknown if localization implies the commitment of other
offences nor is there a statistical analysis available to effectively implement
preventive strategies. Therefore, despite the real and imminent risk for a person
or group of persons of disappearance, no concrete measures for prevention have
been taken.

The Public Prosecutors office (District Attorney), the National Office of Offences
Against Life, Violent Death, Disappearance and Kidnapping (DINASED), and the
National Board of Judgeship (CNJ) have each produced separate protocols of
investigation for these cases, and neither is elaborated with the participation of
victims and their families. It is important to mention that, in detriment of the
rights of the victims and their families, these Administrative Units dont have the
multidisciplinary personnel required for the job. Moreover, police and prosecutor
agents, under the argument of reserve, fail to inform the families of the victims,
seriously affecting their rights to truth and justice. Finally, there is hostile attitude
on the part of the state, state agencies, and state personnel directed towards the
families of victims, and organizations of civil society, which contributes to the
inefficacy of investigation.

For more information please contact Harold Burbano INREDH

garantias@inredh.org; +593996778457, in Quito-Ecuador; and Natalia YayaFIDH
nyaya@fidh.org, in Geneva, Switzerland.