Tbe author of the communication (initial letter dated 13 July 1987 and further letters of 2 February, 14 March and 22 Sftptember 1988) is Floresmilo BolaDos, an Ecuadorian citizen who claims to be a victim of violations of articles 3, ~ and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by Ecuador.
He states that he has been detained since November 1982 without bail at the Centro de Detencion Provisional in Quito in connection with the investigation of the murder of Mr. Ivan Eqas, whose body was found on 11 September 1982 in the lions' cage at the zoological garden of the Military Academy where the author had been employed. He claims to be innocent of the crime and that he was arrested without any evidence against him. It is suggested that Ivan Egas had been the lover of a colonel's wife, that the colonel had him kil1e~ and that the body was subsequently taken by other persons into the lions' cage. He further al10ges that his right to be tried within a reasonable time has been violated, in partiCUlar, that while Ecuadorian law provides that detention before indictment should not exceed 60 days, he was detained for over five years prior to being indicted in December 1987. The delay in the proceedings is allegedly attributable to the * Pursuant to rula 85 of the rules of procedure Mr. Julio Prado Vallejo did not participate in the consideration of this communication or in the adoption of the views of the Committe~ undar article 5, paragraph 4/ of the Optional Protocol.
With respect o'f the eXhaustion of domestic reme~ies, the author states that the pre-trial investigation was complete~ only in December 1987, when the Presi~ent of the High Court of Justice in Quito in~icte~ him and six other persons. The author appeale~ without success against ~~. ~ecision of the High Court to in~ict him as an accomplice.
By its decision of 19 October 1987, the Working Group of the Human Rights Committee transmitted the communication under rule 91 of the Commmittee's rules of procedure to the State parey, requesting information an~ observations ~elevant to the question of the a~i8sibility of the communication.
The Committee took note of the observations of the State party, dated 2 February 1988, that procee~ings against the author were un~er way in the High Court of JUltice in Quito, an~ of the author's comments thereon, dated 14 March 1988, that, because of the alleged involvement of military figures in the case, proceedings before the High Court had been unreasonably prolonge~ an~ that he ha~ already been detained lor five years and six months.
The Committ.e a.certaine~, as it is required to do under article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of ·.~e Optional Protocol, that the lame matter was not being examined under another procedure of international investigation OT settlement. With regard to article 5, paragraph Z (b), of the Optional Protocol, concerning the exhaustion of dom.ltic remedies, the Committee noted that the jUdicial procee~ings against Mr. Bolanol h~d been unreasonably prolonge~ and that the State party had not indicated that there were effective remedies against such prolongation. In the circumstances, the Committee found that it was not precluded from considering the communication.
On 7 April 1988, the Human Rights Committee decided that the communication was admissible.
By Dote of 29 July 1988, the State party indicates that on 24 June 1988 a hearing was held at the Superior Court in Quito concerning the murder of Ivan £gas. The State party ~oes not provide any explanations or statements concerning the specific violations of the Covenant alleged to have occurred.
In a letter date~ 22 September 1988 the author reiterates his innocence, observing that he has been arbitrarily ~etained for six years and that no jUdgement has yet been issue~, or is expected in the near future, in his case.
The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all written information made available to it by the parties, as provided in article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. In adopting its views, the Committee stresses that it is not making any finding on the guilt or innocence of Mr. Bolanos but solely on the question whether any of his rights un~er the Covenant have been violated.
The author of the communication claims that there have been breaches of articles 3, 9 and 14 of the Covenant. In formUlating its views the Committee takes
With respect to the author's allegations concerning a violation of article 3 of the Covenant, it is not clear in what particular respect that article has been invoked and the Committee is unable t, make a finding in this reqard.
With respect to the prohibition of arbitrary arrest or detention contained in article 9 of the Covenant, the Committee observes that although the State party has indicated that the author was suspected of involvement in the mnrder of Ivan Egas, it has not explained why it was deemed necessary to keep him under de~ention fox' five years prior to his indictment in December 1987. In this connection the Committee notes that article 9, paragraph 3, of the Covenant provides that anyone arrested on a criminal charge "shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release. It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantess to appear for trial ••• ". The Committee further observes th&t article 9, paragraph 5, of the Covenant provides that "anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation". 8.t With respect to the requirement of a fair hearing within the meaning of article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, the Committee note. that the concept of a fair hearing necessarily entails that justice be rendered witho"t undue delay, and refers in this connection to its prior case law (MuDo. y. Peru, communication No. 203/1986, views adopted on 4 November 1988, para. 11.2). Furthermore. the Committee notes that article 14, paragraph 3 (c), guarantees the right to be tried without undue delay, and concludes that, on the basis of the information before it, the delays encountered by the avthor in the determination of the charges against him are incompatible with the aforementioned provision.
The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the facts of this case disclose violations of article 9, paragraphs 1 and 3, because Mr. Floresmilo Bolanos was deprived of liberty contrary to the laws of Ecuador and not tried within a reasonable time, and of article 14, paragraphs 1 and 3 (c), of the Covenant, because he was denied a fair hearing without undue delay.
The Committee, accordingly, is of the view that the State party is under an obligation, in accordance with the provisions of article 2 of the Covenant, to take effective measures to remedy the viol~tions ;uffered by Mr. Floresmilo Bolanos, to release him pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings against him, and to grant him compensation pursuant to article 9, paragraph S, of the Covenant.