After the Provincial Court of Pichincha in Ecuador denied the appeal for protective action filed by Brazilian journalist Manuela Picq on Oct. 1, her lawyer announced that the case will be presented to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) of the Organization of American States (OAS).
The protective action was requested by Picq in order to regain her constitutional rights, which, in her opinion, were violated after her arrest in Ecuador on Aug.13, Picq's lawyer Juan Pablo Albán said in conversation with the Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas.
Picq's arrest was in connection with demonstrations that took place in Quito. After being detained, her visa was revoked and Picq was in danger of being deported. However, a judge ruled that the charges brought by Ecuador were not sufficient for expulsion, as newspaper O Globo reported at the time.
After a first judge denied the protection action in which Picq sought to regain her rights and the reactivation of her visa, the journalist decided to voluntarily leave Ecuador.
However, with the most recent decision, Albán ensures that the domestic remedies available for Picq’s return to Ecuador have been expended. It is for this reason that the case will be taken to international bodies such as the Commission.
Albán spoke with the Knight Center about his defense arguments in Picq’s case and about the future of this case.
Knight Center: What is the current status of the Manuela Picq case?
Juan Pablo Albán: What we received recently was the decision of the Court of Provincial Appeals, as it is called in Ecuador, [of denial] on the protection action for the violation of the rights to freedom of expression, to personal integrity, to equality before the law and due process. The protection action, known elsewhere as amparo, once it is exhausted in domestic law, there are no other possibilities.
In that sense we are preparing to appear before the Commission, we will ask, fairly, that her human rights are respected. Our plan is to ensure that she can return to Ecuador.
CK: Although there is little information from the government, one of the arguments given by it for her detention was that Manuela was in the country under an immigration status that prevented her from participating in political activities. What was Manuela's immigration status at the time of her arrest and how true is this remark?
JPA: It's true that she had an immigration visa known as visa 12-VIII of cultural exchange. What is false is that she had banned from any political activity, like participating in a protest, by the type of visa that she had.
Under Ecuador's constitution, foreigners who are in Ecuadorian territory have the same rights as an Ecuadorian citizen, regardless of immigration status. And protesting, according to Article 66 Number 13 of our constitution, is designated as a right.
But also she was not protesting, she was covering the event as a journalist, because she was a correspondent for various international media. She was accompanying the march, but she was not part of it. But if she had been, that was her right because foreigners have the same rights as Ecuadorians and protesting is a right.
CK: In spite of this argument, initial reports point to a lack of clarity about the alleged crime attributed to Manuela, the reason that her visa was revoked. Throughout this process, did this change, is there more information about that?
JPA: In fact, in the Foreign Ministry’s statement on the cancellation of the visa, no reason was exposed, but during the arrest itself there was an explanation.
The immigration police said that they arrested her because her migration status was irregular. But this [the arrest] happened on Aug. 13 and the cancellation of her visa was on Aug. 14. That is to say, the police see the future, knew that she was going to be 'illegal', so to speak, in Ecuador.
Throughout this process they have shielded the discretionary powers of Ecuador to grant a visa or not to grant it. What happens is that they are confusing discretion with arbitrariness, when the constitution states that all decisions of public authorities, whether it is a judicial or administrative decision, the reasons why the decision is made and the legal standards on which the decision is based must be explained.
CK: Now that you are thinking of taking the case to the Commission, will this be presented by the traditional petition system or with you ask for a precautionary measure?
JPA: We will file a case petition case with a request for a precautionary measure.
We respect the procedures, we will submit the case through regular channels, but what we are going to do is to talk with the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, Edison Lanza, because at the moment, Manuela sent him a communication explaining her situation, and we have asked him to be aware of the situation.
CK: Do you think it is an attack on Manuela’s freedom of expression or retaliation for the activities of her partner, as some reported at the time?
JPA: For us, she is a direct victim of the facts. They violated her rights to personal integrity, freedom of mobility, freedom of expression, right to free choice of residence, free movement, political rights, judicial protection, and guarantees of due process.
But there are also indirect victims. We cannot lose sight of what happened to Manuela’s students, she was a teacher, and the students that had been registered for her classes suddenly were notified that she would no longer give lessons. And also her partner.
CK: What do you see for this case in the future? How long do you think they will wait for a solution?
JPA: It’s hard to say. These processes may take a long time because there is a backlog at the Commission, which is made worse by the lack of allocation of resources by member states of the OAS.
As it is accompanied by a request for precautionary measure by regulation it may put the complaint under an accelerated procedure.
In the meantime, we are also awaiting a response from the Foreign Ministry on an administrative appeal presented after the Mercosur visa, asked for by Manuela, was denied.
Note from the editor: This story was originally published by the Knight Center’s blog Journalism in the Americas, the predecessor of LatAm Journalism Review.
