30 days in prison.
For a tweet.
For an opinion.

The revelations

Following the public complaint of an anti-corruption judge who said he had been pressured to favor a convicted money launderer, I reported publicly on conflicts of interest at the top of the Judiciary Council, linked to the legal defense of individuals associated with drug trafficking. None of those involved denied the information.

The retaliation begins

Coordinated pro-government accounts attack me in waves; a senior state official publicly insinuates — with no evidence and no judicial process — that my name would appear on seized devices; and the then-president of the Judiciary Council singles me out before the National Assembly, accusing me without proof of destabilizing institutions. Fundamedios documents the pattern in three successive public alerts.

First criminal complaint

A private individual files a complaint with the Prosecutor’s Office for alleged tax fraud, based solely on social media posts and providing no evidence, requesting a raid on my home and the seizure of my devices. All of my income is invoiced, declared and taxed.

I meet Monika Silva

Anti-corruption defender Monika Silva personally shares with me, over several hours, her testimony about grave allegations she had been documenting and the threats she had received. She herself had publicly warned of a plan to kill her.

Monika Silva and me, in Olón, May 3, 2026 — the day we met. Thirty-six days later she was found dead. Her case remains without a single arrest.

Slander complaint in Quito — never notified

Two private individuals linked to a warehouse raided by the anti-narcotics Police — where close to one million dollars in cash was found — file a slander complaint against me over my posts about that operation. I am never summoned or notified; I discover the complaint on my own. The judge rejects it for failing to meet the requirements of Art. 647 of the COIP and orders it archived on June 29.

Monika Silva is found dead

The autopsy, confirmed on June 19, establishes a violent death and rules out suicide; the case is being investigated under the femicide protocol. According to public reports, shortly before her death Silva delivered a dossier with her allegations to the U.S. Embassy in Quito

The tweet

I publicly ask the U.S. Embassy to help clarify Monika Silva’s death. A private individual enters the thread accusing me of speaking «only out of economic interests» and announcing that I would answer «before the ordinary criminal courts.» I reply with an opinion that names no one. That same day, another of his messages spells out — in gratuitous capitals — the name of a member of my family. My reply, two minutes later, went on the record: «I take note and keep your veiled threat in my records.»

The UN speaks

The UN Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders urges the Ecuadorian State to cease the persecution, criminalization and surveillance of defenders.

His first complaint is dismissed

The insult complaint the same individual filed against me (case 09333-2026-01017) is declared «not brought» and archived due to his own procedural default. Days later, he files again.

International alert

I file a formal 22-page alert, with documentary evidence, before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and its Special Rapporteurship for Freedom of Expression, the UN Special Rapporteur, the OHCHR, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

Express summons

I am summoned barely 10 days before trial, on the same complainant’s new action, before the Multi-jurisdictional Judicial Unit of Samborondón.

First-instance ruling

In a single session of 6 hours and 40 minutes — with observers denied entry — a judge who appeared the day of the hearing finds me responsible for a misdemeanor of non-slanderous insult (Art. 396 COIP): 30 days in prison and compulsory public apologies. Within hours, the digital harassment machinery reactivates against me.

The IACHR Rapporteurship speaks

The Special Rapporteurship for Freedom of Expression of the IACHR — a recipient of my July 7 alert — publicly expresses concern over the conviction, recalling that the use of criminal mechanisms to punish public-interest expression violates Article 13 of the American Convention. The Inter-American System is now watching the case.

Request for precautionary measures before the IACHR

My defense, led by Dr. Juan Vizueta together with the Permanent Committee for the Defense of Human Rights (CDH), files a request for precautionary measures before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The core request: that the Ecuadorian State refrain from enforcing the 30-day prison term and the compelled public apologies ; that it adopt protective measures for me and for a member of my family — the one named in the veiled threat that appears in the court record without any authority having acted on it; and that it guarantee I can continue my work free from intimidation and criminalization.

Apple mercenary spyware notification

On August 13, 2026 I received a threat notification from Apple warning of a mercenary spyware attack targeting the iPhone associated with my account. I verified its authenticity through my Apple account page. The notification states that the attack is likely directed at me specifically because of who I am or what I do, and describes this class of tools as exceptionally rare, costing millions of dollars, and deployed individually against a very small number of selected people. Apple does not attribute these notifications to any specific actor or region, and neither do I: I am placing the documented fact and its date on record. Whether my information was actually accessed is a matter for the forensic analysis currently being conducted by specialized international organizations, and for the examination requested from the Attorney General’s Office.

As a security measure, and with specialized technical support, I closed active sessions and changed my credentials. Between that night and August 14 I had no access to my account on X, @EnVozAlta. Access has been restored. No message was posted from the account during that interval.

The written ruling arrives

Eighteen days after the oral conviction, I am served with the written text of the ruling. Only then do the deadlines to challenge it begin to run.

Criminal complaint for unlawful interception of data

Represented by Dr. Pablo Encalada Hidalgo, I file a complaint before the Attorney General’s Office for the alleged offense of unlawful interception of data (Art. 230.1 of the COIP), against an unidentified perpetrator. The complaint asks that the investigation be assigned to the National Cybercrime Unit; that digital evidence, which degrades within days, be urgently preserved; that a forensic examination of the device be carried out; that it be certified whether any judicial order ever authorized surveillance of me; and that public procurement of surveillance technology over the past five years be audited. I state expressly that I do not know the material outcome of the intrusion: that is precisely what the forensic examination must establish.

Motion for clarification

My defense, led by Dr. Juan Vizueta Ronquillo, files a motion for clarification on two contradictions in the ruling. First: the ruling holds that conviction requires proving the intent and will to harm someone’s honor (¶ 138 and 139) and, four paragraphs later, states that such intent «shall be presumed» (¶ 143) — even though the ruling itself invokes the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof, and the beyond-reasonable-doubt standard (¶ 148 and 154). It asks the court to specify whether intent was proven or presumed. Second: the ruling invokes the testimony of former Constitutional Court judge Ramiro Ávila Santamaría to conclude that there was a «specific imputation» against the complainant, when the hearing record states exactly the opposite: that the expression identifies no one and is an opinion. It asks the court to indicate where in that testimony the conclusion is grounded.

The appeal

With the motion for clarification filed, the deadline to appeal runs once the court resolves it. Meanwhile, the killing of Monika Silva remains without a single arrest.