IPU Logo-top>>> VERSION FRANÇAISE  
 IPU Logo-middleInter-Parliamentary Union  
IPU Logo-bottomChemin du Pommier 5, C.P. 330, CH-1218 Le Grand-Saconnex/Geneva, Switzerland  

ECUADOR
CASE N° EC/11 - F. AGUIRRE CORDERO
CASE N° EC/12 - A. ÁLVAREZ MORENO
CASE N° EC/13 - F. ALARCÓN SÁENZ
CASE N° EC/14 - N. MACÍAS
CASE N° EC/15 - R. AUQUILLA ORTEGA
CASE N° EC/16 - A. E. AZUERO RODAS
CASE N° EC/17 - E. A. BAUTISTA QUIJE
CASE N° EC/18 - R. V. BORJA JONES
CASE N° EC/19 - S. G. BORJA BONILLA
CASE N° EC/20 - F. G. BRAVO BRAVO
CASE N° EC/21 - M. L. BURNEO ÁLVAREZ
CASE N° EC/22 - J. C. CARMIGNIANI GARCÉS
CASE N° EC/23 - J. H. CARRASCAL CHIQUITO
CASE N° EC/24 - L. O. CEDEÑO ROSADO
CASE N° EC/25 - F. A. COBO MONTALVO
CASE N° EC/26 - E. G. CHÁVEZ VARGAS
CASE N° EC/27 - L. A. CHICA ARTEAGA
CASE N° EC/28 - P. DEL CIOPPO ARANGUNDI
CASE N° EC/29 - M. S. DIAB AGUILAR
CASE N° EC/30 - J. DURÁN MACKLIFF
CASE N° EC/31 - E. B. ESPÍN CÁRDENAS
CASE N° EC/32 - L. E. FERNÁNDEZ CEVALLOS
CASE N° EC/33 - P. FIERRO OVIEDO
CASE N° EC/34 - O. P. FLORES MANZANO
CASE N° EC/35 - A. G. GALLARDO ZAVALA
CASE N° EC/36 - M. V. GRANIZO CASCO
CASE N° EC/37 - A. X. HARB VITERI
CASE N° EC/38 - O. IBARRA SARMIENTO
CASE N° EC/39 - J. E. ITURRALDE MAYA
CASE N° EC/40 - F. J. JALIL SALMÓN
CASE N° EC/42 - C. LARREÁTEGUI NARDI
CASE N° EC/43 - I. G. MARCILLO ZABALA
CASE N° EC/44 - M. MÁRQUEZ GUTIÉRREZ
CASE N° EC/45 - C. R. MAYA MONTESDEOCA
CASE N° EC/46 - J. I. MEJÍA ORBE
CASE N° EC/47 - E. MONTAÑO CORTEZ
CASE N° EC/48 - L. U. MORALES SOLÍS
CASE N° EC/49 - T. A. MOSCOL CONTRERAS
CASE N° EC/50 - B. L. NICOLALDE CORDERO
CASE N° EC/51 - A. L. NOBOA YCAZA
CASE N° EC/52 - X. E. NÚÑEZ PAZMIÑO
CASE N° EC/53 - C. G. OBACO DÍAZ
CASE N° EC/54 - L. A. PACHALA POMA
CASE N° EC/55 - J. F. PÉREZ INTRIAGO
CASE N° EC/56 - M. X. PONCE CARTWRIGHT
CASE N° EC/57 - H. L. ROMERO CORONEL
CASE N° EC/58 - W. F. ROMO CARPIO
CASE N° EC/59 - G. M. SALTOS ESPINOZA
CASE N° EC/60 - G. R. SALTOS FUENTES
CASE N° EC/61 - M. L. SÁNCHEZ CIFUENTES
CASE N° EC/62 - S. E. SÁNCHEZ CAMPOS
CASE N° EC/63 - A. SERRANO VALLADARES
CASE N° EC/64 - L. F. TAPIA LONBEIDA
CASE N° EC/65 - L. F. TORRES TORRES
CASE N° EC/66 - W. VALLEJO GARAY
CASE N° EC/67 - N. VITERI JIMÉNEZ

Resolution adopted unanimously by the IPU Governing Council at its 182nd session
(Cape Town, 18 April 2008)

The Governing Council of the Inter-Parliamentary Union,

Referring to the case of the parliamentarians listed above, members of the Parliament of Ecuador, as outlined in the report of the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians (CL/182/12(b)-R.1), and to the resolution adopted at its 181st session (October 2007),

Taking into account the information provided at the hearing held on the occasion of the 118th IPU Assembly with a delegation from Ecuador comprising of the President of the Constitutional Court, the Vice-President of the Supreme Electoral Court, the Deputy Prosecutor General, and two members of the Constituent Assembly; taking into account also the information provided by the source at the hearing held during that Assembly,

Recalling the following information on file:

  • On 7 March 2007, the Supreme Electoral Court (TSE) effectively dismissed 56 Congress members and debarred them for one year from participating in political life, declaring that they had interfered with the electoral process by voting in favour of the two National Congress resolutions calling for the dismissal and replacement of the TSE President, for lodging with the Constitutional Court an application for annulment of the resolution by the TSE to call for the referendum on the establishment of a Constituent Assembly as being unconstitutional, and for proposing impeachment proceedings against the four TSE members who had approved the resolution for a referendum;

  • On 23 April 2007, the Constitutional Court ruled that the revocation of the mandates of the Congress members was unlawful, after which the TSE filed a request for clarification and amplification; on 24 April 2007, the National Congress, which had meanwhile replaced most of the dismissed parliamentarians with their substitutes, decided to dismiss the judges of the Constitutional Court, on the grounds that their mandate had expired in January 2007;

  • On 25 July 2007, the newly-designated Constitutional Court rendered ineffective the decision of 23 April 2007 of its predecessor, finding constitutional breaches and procedural flaws, this new decision being unappealable and hence final;

  • On various occasions, several of the 56 members of Congress in question have been attacked by demonstrators,
Considering that, according to the authorities at the hearing held at the 118th IPU Assembly, the parliamentarians had been dismissed because they wanted to disrupt an electoral process which had received wide support in Ecuador, that their action took place at the time of a declared “electoral period” during which electoral law took precedence, that there was a sound basis in the Law on Elections to dismiss them, and that they had enjoyed due process throughout the procedure,

Considering that, according to the source at the hearing held at the 118th IPU Assembly, the dismissal of the parliamentarians had been for purely political reasons and lacked any legal basis, and that, as a result of the one-year suspension of their political rights, they were deprived of their voting card, which in turn led to a significant number of other restrictions in the public and private spheres,

Recalling that a request for the pre‑trial detention of both 24 of the dismissed deputies for compromising State security and for overriding their functions in having set up an unlawful parallel congress, and of the other culprits, accomplices and accessories after the fact, though not acted upon at that time, could be reactivated by the authorities at any time; considering that, on 10 January 2008, the Pichincha District Attorney General did indeed request the competent Judge in the case to authorize the institution of criminal proceedings,

Recalling the repeated recommendation of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers of the United Nations Commission for Human Rights (now known as the Human Rights Council) to the authorities of Ecuador to depoliticize the judicial system and ensure an administration of justice based on the principles of independence and competence,

Considering that on 12 October 2007, the dismissed parliamentarians presented a formal petition regarding their situation to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights,

Considering that on 29 November 2007 the Constituent Assembly of Ecuador, which had been elected on 30 September 2007, decided to suspend the National Congress until such time as the results were announced of a referendum on a revised constitution that the Assembly was entrusted to present to the Ecuadorian people in due course; the 56 dismissed parliamentarians could not participate in the elections for the Constituent Assembly as the suspension of their political rights was still in force at the time; several members of the Constituent Assembly have reportedly advocated their exclusion from any further elections,

  1. Thanks the authorities of Ecuador for the extensive information they provided and for their spirit of cooperation;

  2. Nevertheless considers that the information has not dispelled its fundamental concerns in this case regarding a breach of parliamentary immunity and the unlawful revocation of the parliamentary mandate of more than half of the members of the Ecuadorian Congress;

  3. Reaffirms in this respect that parliamentary immunity in relation to opinions expressed and votes cast in parliament is a cornerstone of representative democracy and is jealously guarded in parliaments the world over, thereby shielding members of parliaments from any judicial or other proceedings for any vote cast or opinion expressed in the exercise of their parliamentary mandate;

  4. Stresses that the revocation of a parliamentary mandate is a serious measure which irrevocably deprives the affected member of parliament of the possibility of carrying out the mandate entrusted to them, and that it must therefore be taken in strict accordance with the law;

  5. Insists in this respect that:
    1. The 56 Ecuadorian parliamentarians were dismissed in breach of their parliamentary immunity, as enshrined in the Constitution of Ecuador, on account of decisions they took in the exercise of their mandate and set out in the Constitutional Court's ruling of 23 April 2007;

    2. The fact that the parliamentarians took these decisions when Ecuador was in an election period does not dispense the electoral authority from respecting this guarantee;

    3. The legal norms, in particular the Constitution, clearly stipulate the situations, reasons and processes, which may lead to loss of the parliamentary mandate in Ecuador and do not empower the electoral authority to dismiss national deputies for electoral offences;
  6. Is deeply concerned that the Constitutional Court, as currently composed, annulled the decision of its predecessor, which had reinstated the 56 deputies, precisely on these grounds; fails to understand how the Constitutional Court could adopt a completely new and different ruling in response to a request that it further clarify and amplify its original decision; deeply regrets that the Constitutional Court subsequently considered the matter closed, thus not only denying the 56 deputies their right to obtain a valid judgment on the merits of their case, but also avoiding clarification of a question of great public interest;

  7. Fears that the dismissal of the Constitutional Court that ruled to reinstate the deputies and the designation of a new Court that subsequently set aside that ruling may have been largely prompted not by legal but by political considerations; and points in this respect to the following:
    1. the members of the Constitutional Court which reinstated the parliamentarians were dismissed, not in January 2007 when their mandate was said to have expired, but on the day after they ruled to reinstate the 56 deputies;

    2. the decision to dismiss the members of the Constitutional Court was taken by deputies who included those who had previously been substitutes, and that in taking the decision they were both judge and jury by virtue of their interest in avoiding the return of their predecessors;
  8. Considers that the events in this case are discordant with the recommendations made by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers; calls on the authorities to step up their efforts to strengthen the independence of the judiciary and thus prevent any recurrence of similar situations; would greatly appreciate being kept informed of such work as the Constituent Assembly may be conducting in this respect;

  9. Is deeply concerned that the prosecuting authorities have reactivated the charges directly linked to the parliamentary activities of 24 of the dismissed deputies, which if pursued may well impede their voting and standing in any forthcoming elections; calls on the authorities to drop the charges forthwith and to ensure that the persons concerned, as they have been entitled since 8 March 2008, are able fully to exercise their political rights;

  10. Requests the Secretary General to convey this resolution to the competent authorities and to the source;

  11. Requests the Committee to continue examining this case and report to it at its next session, to be held on the occasion of the 119th Assembly of the IPU (Geneva, October 2008).
Note: you can download a complete electronic version of the brochure "Results of the 118th IPU Assembly and related meetings" in PDF format (file size 547K approximately). This version requires Adobe Acrobat Reader, which you can download free of charge.Get Acrobat Reader

HOME PAGEred cubeHUMAN RIGHTSred cubeMAIN AREAS OF ACTIVITYred cubeIPU STRUCTURE AND DOCUMENTS