Dr. Fernando Alarcón Saenz on the Ecuadorian Administration of Justice
PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC
NATIONAL PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE
CHAIRMAN OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF THE JUDICIARY
PRESIDENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
On August 2, 2010 the doctors JOSÉ VICENTE TROYA, JOSÉ SUING, and GUSTAVO DURANGO, Judges of the Tax Litigation Division of the National Court of Justice issued an order in judgment made by Banana Exporting Noboa SA against the Internal Revenue Service by the gloss of 2005, in one of its parts in textual say:
“… That against acts that have had the effect of preventing the formation processes in triple repetition failure has set the criterion that is from the appeal, otherwise this would expose a denial of justice, leave helplessness counteract the individual concerned and the provisions of art. 76 of the Constitution … On those occasions, the Internal Revenue Service has shown no qualms against this approach of the Chamber is to be reconciled with constitutional guarantees and those who work in the many international human rights treaties ratified by Ecuador. ”
On February 3, 2012 doctors JOSÉ SUING NAGUA, GUSTAVO DURANGO VELA and JAVIER CORDERO ORDOÑEZ dictated a statement in which among other things say.
“There has been demand qualification … As such there is in this case a process itself, let alone a car that has been terminated, so that the appeal is inadmissible the tenor of schedule in art. 2 of the Law of Cassation “.
Understanding that in August 2012 NAGUA suing doctors and GUSTAVO JOSE VELA DURANGO say that if it is brought against cars that prevent the formation of a process based on that criterion rescinded shelve the case provided by the Second Chamber of the Court Attorney and in 2012 the opposite hold to confirm the process file again ordered by the Second Chamber of the Tax Court without demand has even been called for the company to defend itself from the arbitrary and illegal breakdown with a tax due of course $ 49’110, 990.
Understanding that in August 2010 JOSÉ SUING NAGUA and GUSTAVO DURANGO VELA hold that there is no denial of justice, leaving defenseless the individual concerned and oppose the provisions in art. 76 of the Constitution of the Republic and in 2012 made the opposite, violating constitutional guarantees referred to in this way and allow the Internal Revenue Service intends to charge a gloss arbitrary and illegitimate and are not allowed to discuss it in court.
The effective implementation of constitutional guarantees protects the Constitution and we are turning to the relevant legal channels, so the lawsuit that ordered the closure of the demand, it remains latent.
I dare say Mr. President that you will agree that the administration of justice can not and should trample at will the constitutional guarantees of effective judicial protection, due process, no one can be left defenseless.
Dr. Fernando Alarcón Sáenz