|
Ecuador The Administration of Justice
The court system consisted of the Supreme Court of Justice,
which sat in the capital; superior courts in the capitals of ten
provinces; 35 provincial criminal courts; 87 cantonal courts; and
445 parish courts. Parish judges tried minor civil matters and
misdemeanors, their verdicts being subject to review by cantonal
courts. Cantonal judges also could conduct preliminary hearings and
make recommendations in criminal cases. Nonetheless, provincial
courts were the courts of first instance in such cases, except
those involving government officials. Provincial criminal judges
had the authority to try criminal cases for which, according to the
penal code, the punishment did not exceed three years in prison.
Criminal proceedings consisted of summary and plenary parts.
The first of these usually took place before a local court and the
second before a provincial criminal court. The summary assessed
whether or not an offense had been committed and if a trial were
warranted; the plenary determined the guilt or innocence of the
accused.
After an arrest, except for minor offenses, the police were
required to turn the suspect over to the judge of the local
cantonal court, who would conduct an investigation to determine if
there were sufficient grounds for trial. According to the law, the
findings of the investigation had to be forwarded within fifteen
days to the provincial criminal court holding jurisdiction over the
case.
When the summary proceedings had been completed, the record was
delivered to the public prosecutor so that he could prepare the
accusation. If, in the opinion of the presiding judge, the
information contained in the summary did not warrant a continuation
of the proceedings, the judge could release the suspect on bail.
Dismissal of the case would be final if the public prosecutor could
not find merit in the accusation or if the judge felt the existence
of an offense had not been absolutely established. If the case
warranted a trial, it then went to the Tribunal of Crimes, a
five-member body presided over by the judge of the provincial
criminal court. Upon the completion of arguments, the tribunal
retired in secret session and then announced its verdict. Except in
special cases, such as those involving a breach of morality, trials
were public. Ecuador did not use the jury system.
Defendants could call witnesses on their own behalf, crossexamine witnesses, and refrain from testifying against themselves,
and could appeal sentences to intermediate or higher courts.
Accused persons were entitled to legal counsel as soon as arrested.
Although a public defender system is mandated by the 1979
Constitution, it had not been introduced as of 1988. Persons who
could not afford counsel faced the longest period of pretrial
detention. Detention without charge for more than forty-eight hours
was prohibited by the criminal code, but the requirement was
frequently violated in practice. Habeas corpus could be invoked by
mayors or municipal council presidents who had the constitutional
right to order the release of detainees. This power tended to be
exercised liberally, regardless of the severity of the charges.
According to the Department of State's human rights reports,
the judicial system was inefficient and corruptible, in part
because of inexperienced and poorly paid judges. A chronic backlog
of cases meant that detainees might be forced to wait two years or
longer for trial. According to the Special Commission on Human
Rights, approximately 50 percent of all prisoners as of 1988 had
not been charged or sentenced. Time spent awaiting trial counted
toward completion of a sentence, but that did not help long-term
detainees who were eventually acquitted.
In the late 1980s, Ecuador recorded significant levels of urban
crime. The increased crime rate, particularly notable in Guayaquil
and to a lesser extent in Quito, was linked to the steady rural to
urban migration. Most migrants lacked the skills necessary to
obtain employment in the cities. Many, in order to provide for
themselves and their families, turned to crime. The country's
economic setbacks during the latter half of the 1980s created an
increasingly desperate situation for adults unable to find
legitimate employment. Although muggings, assaults, pickpocketing,
and burglaries were the most prevalent forms of crime, since 1985
there had been an upsurge of robberies of banks and private
companies by well-armed gangs, as well as of kidnappings and sexual
assaults. Some robberies were connected with the AVC or the
Colombian M-19, but most appeared to be the work of professional
criminals.
Data reported to the International Criminal Police Organization
(Interpol) indicated there were approximately 26,000 crimes
committed in Ecuador in 1984. This number included 400 homicides,
more than 500 rapes, almost 500 serious assaults, approximately
2,400 robberies and violent thefts, more than 6,000 other
robberies, almost 700 car thefts, approximately 600 cases of fraud,
and almost 200 drug offenses. Ecuador had a crime ratio of 292 per
100,000 population. Such a rate would be considered very low on an
international scale, beneath that of many countries with a
reputation for a low incidence of crime, such as Japan. Some
observers speculated that many offenses reported to the police were
not classified as crimes, or that many crimes were not brought to
the attention of the police. For example, the Indian population
customarily dealt with crimes within its own communities without
recourse to the Ecuadorian police.
Data as of 1989
|
