OEA/Ser.G
CP/doc.4028/05 corr. 1
20 May 2005
Original: Spanish
REPORT TO THE PERMANENT COUNCIL ON THE SITUATION IN ECUADOR
OAS Mission to Ecuador
April 26 to 30, 2005
This document is being distributed to the permanent missions and
will be presented to the Permanent Council of the Organization.
- 6 -
REPORT TO THE PERMANENT COUNCIL ON THE SITUATION IN ECUADOR
OAS Mission to Ecuador
April 26 to 30, 2005
I. Background and Mandate of the Mission
On April 22, 2005, the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States adopted resolution CP/RES. 880 (1478/05), “Support by the Organization of American States for the Republic of Ecuador.” In that resolution, the Permanent Council, “taking into consideration the series of political and social developments that have occurred over the past few months in the Republic of Ecuador,” resolved “in accordance with Article 18 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter, and in keeping with the invitation issued by the delegation of Ecuador at this Permanent Council meeting, to send to that Republic a mission, as soon as possible, comprising the Chair of the Permanent Council, the Acting Secretary General, and representatives of subregional groups, to work with officials of that country and with all sectors of Ecuadorian society in their effort to strengthen democracy.”
In addition, it should be recalled that Article 18 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter states that “when situations arise in a member state that may affect the development of its democratic political institutional process or the legitimate exercise of power, the Secretary General or the Permanent Council may, with prior consent of the government concerned, arrange for visits or other actions in order to analyze the situation. The Secretary General will submit a report to the Permanent Council, which will undertake a collective assessment of the situation and, where necessary, may adopt decisions for the preservation of the democratic system and its strengthening.”
The Mission traveled to Quito on April 26 and remained there until the early hours of April 30, when it returned to Organization headquarters in Washington, D.C. As agreed on by the Permanent Council, the Mission was made up by the Chair of the Permanent Council, Ambassador Alberto Borea, Permanent Representative of Peru; the Acting Secretary General, AmbassadorLuigiR.Einaudi; and the following regional group representatives: Ambassador Brian Oak, Ambassador of Canada in Ecuador; Ambassador Esteban Tomic, Permanent Representative of Chile; Ambassador Timothy Dunn, Alternate Representative of the United States; Ambassador Bayney Karran, Permanent Representative of Guyana; Ambassador Salvador Rodezno, Permanent Representative of Honduras; AmbassadorJorgeChen, Permanent Representative of Mexico; and AmbassadorJorgeValero, Permanent Representative of Venezuela.[1]/
II. Mission Activities
On April 26, upon arrival in the city of Quito, the Mission met with the accredited ambassadors to Ecuador of the OAS member states. At that meeting, as at all the others it held during its stay in Quito, the members of the Mission recalled the mandate entrusted to them by the Permanent Council, their resolve to hear all sectors of Ecuadorian society and the broadest possible spectrum of points of view, and their wish to help consolidate and strengthen democracy. In all these undertakings, it enjoyed the determined support of the Ecuadorian authorities.
On April 27, the Mission held, successively, meetings with the President of the Republic, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of the Interior, and other high ranking officials; the Archbishop of Quito and other members of the Episcopal Conference; representatives of the Ecumenical Fraternity; the Mayor of Quito and the Prefect of Pichincha; leaders of the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities; and representatives of various civil society organizations (Participación Ciudadana, Ruptura 25, Transparencia Internacional, and some independent entities). The Mission then went to the National Congress, where it held meetings with deputies from the Social Christian Party, the Democratic Left, Popular Democracy, and the Pachakutik party.
On April 28, the Mission received, in succession, the president’s legal counsel, a group of jurists, former justices and magistrates of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court (dismissed in early December 2004), representatives of the Patriotic Society Party, representatives of the Ecuadorian Roldosista Party, human rights organizations, the Association of Afro-Ecuadorians, and several former Ecuadorian presidents and vice presidents.
April 29 began with a working breakfast with representatives of the main media outlets (press, television, and radio), followed by a series of meetings with representatives of different business sectors; with the State Minister Prosecutor General and the State Attorney General; with members of the Federation of Indigenous Evangelicals; with former justices and magistrates of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court dismissed in April 2005; with representatives of the Poncho Rojo Group (confederation of indigenous peoples); with the representative of the Socialist Party; and with the President of Congress. Finally, at 8:00 pm, the Mission gave a press conference at which the Chair of the Permanent Council read out a press release, the final paragraphs of which stated that, “the Mission notes with satisfaction the commitment of major sectors of Ecuadorian society toward strengthening their democratic institutions and attaining social development. The Mission thanks the Ecuadorian people and authorities for their cooperation, and it applauds their expression of their democratic feelings and desire to act within the confines of the rule of law.”
Finally, it must be noted that throughout its stay in Quito, the Mission was repeatedly asked why the OAS had not acted earlier, at times when, in the questioners’ opinion, severe irregularities had already arisen. The Mission explained that it was acting under the mandate of the Permanent Council pursuant to Article 18 of the Democratic Charter and in line with the invitation extended by the Delegation of Ecuador.
III. Meeting Results
The following preliminary clarifications should be noted:
As stated by Permanent Council resolution CP/RES. 880 (1478/05), the aim was to take on board the situation that had arisen in Ecuador over the past few months, in order to assist efforts to consolidate democracy. This implied, first of all, hearing interviewees’ viewpoints about the situation that Ecuador has recently undergone and, secondly, listening to different opinions on how to consolidate Ecuador’s democratic institutions.
The Mission dealt with all the requests for hearings that were lodged with it before and during its visit, and it again expresses its gratitude to all those who shared their perspectives on the Ecuadorian situation. It believes it covered a significant array of the main players in Ecuadorian society.
This report is not intended to serve as the minutes of those meetings nor as a transcription of opinions and comments of the persons who attended them, with all due attributions. The meetings were held without such information being kept, in order to ensure a maximum of confidence, freedom, and frankness.
The members of the Mission would like to leave due record of the broad willingness to cooperate shown by the Ecuadorian people and authorities.
In addition to the extensive documentation handed over by the participants at the various meetings, the Meeting took into consideration the reports and activities of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in connection with Ecuador’s human rights situation, the precautionary measures adopted in individual cases, and the report on the independence of the judiciary in Ecuador prepared by Dr. Leandro Despouy, the rapporteur for that topic with the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.
With respect to the situation prevailing in Ecuador in recent times, the most important points of agreement are the following:
1. The causes of the institutional difficulties must be traced back to 1997, at least.
2. December 8, 2004, must be identified as one of the key dates in the crisis that led up to the events of April 20, 2005.
3. The difficult relationship between the executive and the legislature that prevailed since 2003 must be underscored.
4. Note must be taken of the key role played by the composition and actions of the judicial branch and the agencies of the judiciary. Stating the situation succinctly:
a. None of the three presidents elected since 1997 was able to conclude his mandate. They were all removed from office.
b. December 8, 2004, when the Supreme Court of Justice was dismissed and a new one appointed, was a key date in the series of events that culminated, on April 20, 2005, with the ouster of President Lucio Gutiérrez. In November 2004, the same thing had happened to the Constitutional Court and the Electoral Court.
c. Throughout this entire period, relations between the executive and legislative branches have been difficult. Volatile parliamentary majorities, weak political alliances, a multiplicity of parties and blocs with scant party loyalty, constant threats of presidential impeachment or removal – these are just some of the realities of Ecuadorian politics, familiar to and acknowledged by all actors within the political arena, and which encumbered the stability of the political system. They were compounded by objections to the way in which the National Congress has operated and, in particular, to the legality of certain instances in which its officers were appointed and its sessions held.
d. The judiciary – and its composition, performance, and autonomy – was affected by the constant conflicts between the other two branches of government and different political players. It has been, and still is, responsible for major decisions that affect the country’s political and economic life. Control over this branch of government and securing influence over its component judges and magistrates led to the politicization of its decisions which, in turn, served to trigger various political crises.
While broad agreement exists regarding these points, there is no such consensus, in contrast, with respect to their interpretation or appraisal, or the allocation of responsibilities for them or the grounds behind them, regarding which each player maintains his or her own political interpretation. The legal, economic, and social reasons that led to these circumstances vary according to whom is speaking; the relative weights of different factors, and the causes behind them, are given different interpretations by different interviewees. The circumstances that led to the popular mobilization seen in Quito and, to a lesser extent, in other cities are also interpreted in various different fashions. They were the result, according to some, of the unkept promises of the political class; according to others, of unsatisfied economic demands, of the need to stop certain human rights from being violated, or of legal defenselessness and insecurity. Various interlocutors complained of wrongful interference (abusiva actuación) by political parties and their leaders in all the branches of government and state institutions. In mid-April, demonstrators began to take to the streets demanding mass removals from office and questioning the handling of state affairs by all the branches of government.
Opinions also vary regarding the constitutionality of the events that occurred on December 8, 2004, and afterwards. A broad majority appear to recognize the irregularity of the decisions adopted by Congress and the executive branch in removing the members of the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court, and the Electoral Court, and in appointing their new judges and magistrates. This was also pointed out by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and by the Rapporteur of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.
On April 15, 2005, the executive branch decreed a state of emergency in the Quito region and dismissed the members of the Supreme Court who had been appointed on December 8. This latter decision was also deemed irregular by almost all the people with whom the Mission spoke.
On April 20, 2005, the army withdrew its support from the President of the Republic; and the National Congress, in accordance with Article 167(6) of the Constitution, declared that the President of the Republic had abandoned his post, dismissed him, and proceeded to swear in the vice president, Dr. Alfredo Palacio. The Mission heard divergent opinions regarding the constitutionality of that decision. A broad majority of the Ecuadorian jurists and constitutional lawyers who were asked, together with the State Attorney General, agreed that the decision was in line with the applicable constitutional provisions; however, other sectors have asked questions about the legitimacy of the call issued to Congress for the decision to be adopted, about the majorities required for an interpretation of the Constitution, and about the interpretation given to the term “abandoning his post.”
As regards the human rights situation during the period in question (December 2004 to April 2005), the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights stated, prior to the events of April 20, that “there has been a series of acts of violence, harassment and threats aimed at leaders of labor unions, social organizations, indigenous and political groups, and students, who have expressed their public opposition to the aforementioned decisions” (IACHR, Press release 8/05, March 11, 2005). At the same period of sessions, the Commission also adopted precautionary measures in certain individual cases involving journalists and leaders of civil society organizations who had had threats made against them.
Following April 20, 2005, the National Congress has adopted various decisions dismissing some deputies accused of “having sold their votes,” appointing a new congressional president, and proposing a number of legislative bills to tackle the situation of the judiciary, both immediately (appointment of interim justices to the Supreme Court) and with a view to enacting a new Organic Magistrates Law.
The most immediate future concerns addressed include the following:
1. Making the judicial branch of government an authentic guarantor of legal security, impartiality, and independence vis-à-vis the political leaders who control the Ecuadorian party system. The vast majority of the interviewees to whom the Mission spoke agreed on this concern and on the need to attain a satisfactory solution to the problem in the short, medium, and long terms;
2. The review and regulation of certain constitutional provisions, especially those referring to grounds for dismissing the President of the Republic, and the drafting of electoral rules and laws on political parties that will serve to ensure governability and stability within the system; and
3. With regard to the strengthening of democratic institutions, a number of alternatives have been proposed, such as convening a Constitutional Assembly; calling elections ahead of schedule; establishing national dialogue panels, and then organizing public consultations.