Ecuador Prosecutor Detains Guayaquil Mayor's Lawyer Ramiro García for Obstructing Justice

In Ecuador on Friday, July 3, 2026, it was announced that an investigation was initiated against Ramiro García Falconí, the lawyer for Guayaquil Mayor Aquiles Álvarez, on allegations of obstructing justice. In a written statement made by the Pichincha State Prosecutor's Office, it was stated that the preliminary investigation against García is directly linked to the 'Triple A' and 'Goleada' cases, which have caused wide repercussions in the country's agenda. According to the decision published by the Prosecutor's Office, this administrative and judicial process has been subject to a 30-day time limit for the collection of evidence and the clarification of the event. The investigation focuses on allegations of rights violations or irregularities by the suspects and is currently confidential.

According to the details of the investigation process, the Transparency and Anti-Corruption Unit was assigned to conduct the investigations regarding the incident, and this unit is meticulously following all stages of the legal process. Action is being taken in accordance with the articles in the Ecuador Criminal Procedure Code (COIP) against those who intentionally obstruct the administration of justice, mislead witnesses, or attempt to influence members of the judiciary. Efforts are being made to determine whether García's actions constitute the crime of 'obstructing justice' defined in Article 270.1, which requires a prison sentence of between 5 and 7 years. In accordance with legal procedures, the legal grounds for the crime attributed to García are based on the relevant articles of the Judicial Organization Law as well as the Criminal Procedure Code.

The Prosecutor's Office has begun to take all necessary judicial and administrative measures to deepen the investigation, within the scope of which requests have been made to conduct examinations at the crime scenes and to systematically record the evidence. With the notification of the decision, it was stated that Ramiro García's legal rights were protected, he was informed to prepare his defense, and all procedures to summon him to the courthouse during the process were initiated. Authorities announced that administrative measures such as determining Garcia's residence and ensuring his attachment to a specific location were also implemented to ensure the healthy conduct of the investigation. At this stage, the fact that the prosecutor's office has not made an official statement regarding which concrete evidence it acted upon reveals the sensitivity of the process.

Following the commencement of the legal process, Ramiro García reacted sharply to the method of notification in his statements before the public, protesting the situation. According to allegations, García argued that receiving the investigation news via email in the middle of the night was contrary to legal practice, describing this email as unnecessary 'spam'. García, claiming that the sent notification contained no report, document, or indictment text supporting the accusation, expressed his suspicions that the process could be a political operation. In his own statement regarding the issue, García suggested that the timing of the notification was significant, implying that this situation harbored political intent rather than a legal process.

Behind García's statements lies the information that he completed the necessary applications for the candidacy of the Council for Citizen Participation and Social Control (CPCCS) during the same period and took part in the election process. The coincidence of legal processes and judicial investigations with the critical periods of the candidacy process caused controversy in Ecuadorian politics, and Garcia interpreted this as an element of political pressure. Encountering such a notification just one day before the deadline expired for objections to candidacies formed the basis for his argument that the scenario was suspicious. On the other hand, the Prosecutor's Office, commenting on the issue, chose to remain silent by avoiding sharing additional information on which concrete incident or evidence was the basis for the investigation, in order to maintain the confidentiality of the investigation.