Corruption allegations brought about a landmark judgment on whistleblower protection

In 2001, Julio Rogelio Viteri Ungaretti, a captain in the Ecuadorian Navy then stationed as a naval attaché at the Ecuadorian embassy in the UK, reported alleged acts of corruption in the armed forces relating to insurance contracts for military aircraft. He made his concerns clear both within the Ecaudorian military and to the ambassador in London.

Viteri Ungaretti’s allegations were subsequently made public in media reports.

Following these allegations, Viteri Ungaretti was ordered to return to Ecuador, where he suffered disciplinary action and detention for speaking to the media.  He also attracted direct criticism from the President of Ecuador, who called him a “nutjob… only the ghosts are after him”.

In fact, Viteri Ungaretti’s family were subjected to surveillance and Viteri Ungaretti himself was pursued with charges of incorrect tax declarations and mismanagement. He was denied future promotion and assigned to an obscure administrative job.

He then tried to pursue his case in the courts. An appeal to Ecuador’s Constitutional Court in 2023 did set aside his arrest orders but did not order any further redress. The country’s anticorruption authority even concluded that Viteri Ungarretti’s corruption allegations had merit, but refused to pursue an investigation any further.

Captain Viteri Ungaretti was in due course forced to leave active service, leading him and his family to seek asylum in the UK in 2004. Eventually, he found alternative employment in Equatorial Guinea.

In a landmark judgement more than 20 years later, on 22 March 2024 the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) made public its decidesion Ungaretti’s disclosures were in the public interest and deserved special protection. The ruling is a critical breakthrough for whistleblower rights throughout Latin America.

Throughout his decades-long legal journey, Ungaretti was supported by the Legal Clinic at Universidad San Francisco de Quito.

Human rights petitions from individuls to Latin America’s human rights bodies are usually heard by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). Cases that make it as far as the Court are rare and the Commission only refers about 30 of these a year.

Viteri Ungaretti’s initial petition to the Commission in 2002 alleged numerous violations of his human rights as a result of his whistleblowing. He asked the Commission to order precautionary measures against the government of Ecaudor to secure the safety of his family and investigate his allegations.

In an indication of how long it takes these cases to make their way through the Inter-American human rights institutions, it took 22 years for the IACtHR to issue its final decision. The court recognised that the Ecuadorian state had violated several of Viteri's rights. These included freedom of expression, protection against arbitrary detention, the right to work and job security, freedom of movement, residence and personal integrity, and protection of his family.

The court emphasised the importance of protecting whistleblowers, recognising that their activities are in the public interest and deserve special protection. This was especially so when whistleblowing reports concerned corruption, which eroded democratic institutions and the rule of law, as well as reducing the public resources that are available to protect human right through social programmes.

The court recognised that there was a “clear public interest” in combatting corruption. In some ways the IACtHR ruling goes beyond the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in asserting that the demonstration of “good faith” is not necessary for a whistleblower to be protected from retaliation. This threshold is often abused by former employers seeking to impugn the motivation of whistleblowers from within their organisation.

Protections for whistleblowers who go to the media are also more extensive than those provided for by the ECtHR or the European Union’s Whistleblowing Directive (Directive 2019/1937). Whistleblowers are entitled to go public if official mechanisms are not reliable or not perceived to be or if there are “valid reasons” for going public. In addition, the Court went some way to rejecting the use of classification to withhold evidence of corruption or human rights violations.

The ruling ordered the Ecuadorian state to pay Viteri and his family USD 120 000 in financial compensation, offer an apology in a public ceremony and acknowledge the state's international responsibilities.

Ecuador was told to amend domestic legislation to provide whistleblower protection training to members of the armed forces and set up an secure channel for any future corruption reports. Protection measures were to include confidentiality, protection from dismissal or detrimental treatment of work, safe harbour from criminal or civil liability, the ability to sanction those breaking these rules and – finally – measures to protect the safety of the whistleblower themselves.

Ecuador also had to publish the ruling in official and national media.

As of October 2025, Ecuador has only partially complied with these orders and Viteri’s legal team is making representations to the IACtHR about Ecuador’s failure to fulfil its requirements. Nevertheless, on 11 August 2024, the Ecuadorian armed forces issued a public apology to Viteri and his family.

Ecuador’s system of whistleblower protection is one of the weakest in the region and the IACtHR decision is unlikely to change that overnight. The recourse for whistleblower disclosures that are not directly related to the fight against also corruption is also not entirely clear.

Nevertheless, this case represents a significant precedent in inter-American jurisprudence, directly linking the protection of human rights to the fight against corruption. The ruling strengthens the protection of whistleblowers and promotes a culture of transparency and public accountability throughout the region.

Links:

Harvard: Banisar, D. (2024) ‘Inter-American Human Rights Court Sets Standards for Protecting Whistleblowers in Corruption Cases’. Corporate Crime Observatory. Available at: www.corporatecrime.co.uk/post/ichr-ungaretti