PUBLIC STATEMENT: On the detention, revocation of the visa, and deportation of Ola Bini: we demand respect for his rights and fundamental guarantees

The undersigned civil society organizations express our deep concern and rejection of the situation faced by Ola Bini, a digital rights defender, software developer, and long-time resident of Ecuador.

In particular, we reject the detention of Ola Bini, the revocation of his residence visa, and the execution of his deportation without full respect for the applicable constitutional and conventional guarantees. These actions are particularly serious given the background of a criminal proceeding that, for more than six years, was marked by serious concerns regarding due process, judicial independence, the presumption of innocence, and judicial guarantees.

We demand that any action taken by the Ecuadorian State with respect to Ola Bini, and in particular any decision concerning his deportation and its effects, strictly comply with the Constitution, the Organic Law on Human Mobility, and international human rights treaties. This includes guaranteeing an individualized and duly reasoned procedure, effective access to legal defense and to the actual grounds for his deportation, a genuine opportunity to challenge the decision and obtain judicial review, as well as compliance with the principle of non-refoulement, proportionality, and effective judicial protection. Given that the deportation has already been carried out, these guarantees must be ensured through effective mechanisms that allow the decisions adopted to be challenged and any violations that may have occurred to be remedied.

I. A criminal proceeding marked by serious concerns

Ola Bini was detained on April 11, 2019, at Quito airport. According to Amnesty International, the detention took place without a judicial warrant and without evidence that he was committing a crime in flagrante delicto. The organization also documented that, during the initial period of detention, Bini was allegedly not informed of his rights or the reasons for his detention in his native language, was allegedly held incommunicado and without immediate access to a lawyer, and that the Swedish Embassy was allegedly not notified in a timely manner. [1]

Bini remained deprived of his liberty for approximately 70 days. On June 20, 2019, a provincial court ordered his release through a habeas corpus action. Amnesty International stated that the court recognized the detention as illegal and arbitrary and that the deprivation of liberty had affected his rights to personal liberty and a fair trial. [1]

The seriousness of these antecedents cannot be minimized. Arbitrary deprivation of liberty constitutes a particularly serious human rights violation and undermines the safeguards that must govern any criminal investigation.

II. Public statements by authorities and the impact on the presumption of innocence

Another particularly concerning element was the making of public statements regarding Bini’s alleged responsibility before a final judicial decision had been issued.

Amnesty International documented that, before and after the detention, senior Ecuadorian government officials made public statements linking Bini to alleged unlawful activities. The organization stated that such statements could affect the independence of the investigation and the right to the presumption of innocence. [1]

Among other statements, then-President Lenín Moreno publicly claimed that Bini had been caught carrying out hacking activities against government accounts, personal accounts, and telephones. [1]

The presumption of innocence requires that no person be publicly presented as responsible for a crime before a final judgment establishes such responsibility in accordance with due process guarantees.

III. Reformulation of the charges and concerns regarding the evidence

During the investigation, changes were also made to the criminal theory advanced by the Prosecutor’s Office.

In August 2019, the Prosecutor’s Office reformulated the initial charge, which concerned the offense of “attack on the integrity of computer systems,” and instead charged Bini with “unauthorized access to a computer system.” [2]

Amnesty International expressed concern that certain evidence may have been obtained in violation of due process guarantees and called on judicial authorities to verify the legality of the evidence used in the proceedings. [1]

The organization also expressed concern regarding the September 2019 search of the home of Fabián Hurtado, an independent computer expert who had been hired by Bini’s defense team to analyze evidence in the case. Electronic equipment was seized during the operation. Amnesty International considered that the manner in which the operation was carried out could have an intimidating effect on the defense. [3]

These circumstances are particularly relevant in a case in which digital evidence constituted a central element of the prosecution and in which the defense had the right to rely on independent experts capable of examining that evidence.

IV. Civil society monitoring and concerns regarding the proceedings

Concerns regarding the proceedings did not come from a single organization.

An Observation Mission composed of approximately twenty civil society organizations from Ecuador and other countries conducted comprehensive monitoring of the case over several years. In 2022, it presented a report entitled A Paradigmatic Proceeding for Human Rights in the Digital Age: The Ola Bini Case. [4]

The Observation Mission stated that it had identified concerns regarding the reasoning behind the charges and violations of due process. Its work addressed legal, technical, and contextual dimensions, as well as the implications of the case for human rights in digital environments. [4]

Likewise, the observation report on the evidentiary and preparatory hearing stated that the participating organizations had identified what they described as “continuous and serious violations of due process” and concerns regarding the political motivation behind the prosecution. [5]

These concerns must be considered within the broader debate on the protection of human rights defenders and, specifically, those working on privacy, cybersecurity, and digital rights.

V. The prolonged proceedings and the “legal limbo”

The proceedings against Bini continued for several years.

In January 2023, a criminal court declared Bini not guilty. Subsequently, in April 2024, an appellate chamber overturned that decision and issued a conviction for attempted commission of the offense.

However, the proceedings did not conclude immediately.

According to the 2025 Annual Report of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Bini remained subject for much of 2025 to precautionary measures imposed since 2019. The Special Rapporteur’s Office reported that civil society organizations described this situation as a “legal limbo” and noted that, on July 25, 2025, the appellate court declared the case time-barred. [6]

The same Special Rapporteur’s Office recorded that, following the conclusion of the criminal proceedings, Bini filed an Extraordinary Action for Protection before Ecuador’s Constitutional Court on October 20, 2025, and that civil society organizations submitted amicus curiae briefs concerning the protection of human rights defenders, particularly in the digital sphere. [6]

The continuation of criminal proceedings for more than six years, accompanied by restrictions that remained in place for much of that period, raises significant questions concerning the reasonable time requirement, effective judicial protection, and the State’s obligation to prevent a person from being subjected indefinitely to legal uncertainty.

VI. The visa, deportation, and immigration status of Ola Bini

In this context, we express particular concern regarding the detention of Ola Bini on October 1, 2026, the subsequent notification of the revocation of his residence visa, and the execution of his deportation.

Ola Bini was intercepted in northern Quito by four individuals who identified themselves as immigration officials and was taken to their offices. According to his defense team, no order from a competent authority was presented to him during the intervention. He also received no prior notification regarding the revocation of his visa. [8]

Upon arriving at the immigration authorities, he was verbally informed that his visa had been revoked. According to information released by Bini and his defense team, the decision was allegedly based on a confidential report that considered him a threat to State security, the contents of which were reportedly not made available to Bini or his lawyers. [8]

Following his detention, his defense team filed a habeas corpus action challenging the legality of his deprivation of liberty and the proceedings initiated against him. The action is recorded in Ecuador’s Automated Judicial Proceedings System (SATJE). [8]

An administrative deportation proceeding was subsequently initiated on grounds related to being a “threat or risk to public security and the structure of the State.” According to information provided by his defense team, deportation was ordered administratively and the decision allegedly included a ten-year prohibition on entering Ecuador. [8]

The deportation was carried out during the early hours of October 2, 2026. According to statements by Bini and reports by the media, he was transferred under custody from Ecuador to Sweden while the habeas corpus action filed by his defense team had not yet been resolved. [8]

On October 3, 2026, Bini reported that he had arrived in Stockholm, Sweden, following his deportation from Ecuador. [9]

Any decision affecting the stay of a foreign national in Ecuador must comply with the principles of legality, reasoning, due process, the right to a defense, and effective judicial protection. This means that Bini should have been able to know which authority adopted the decision, its legal basis, the facts and information supporting it, and the remedies available to challenge it.

The existence of a legal ground for deportation does not eliminate these guarantees. In particular, the lack of effective access to the grounds for a decision producing such serious consequences, as well as the execution of the deportation while a habeas corpus action filed by his defense was still pending, is particularly concerning. [8]

Likewise, any immigration measure must be independent and duly reasoned, and cannot be used as an indirect means of extending the effects of a criminal proceeding that was declared time-barred on July 25, 2025, and in relation to which the precautionary measures were lifted. [6]

We therefore call on the authorities to immediately disclose the decision revoking Bini’s visa, the decision ordering his deportation, and the specific information supporting the grounds invoked, as well as the authority that ordered his detention and transfer.

Civil society considers it essential that Ola Bini and his defense team have effective access to the documents and evidence underlying the decisions adopted and be able to fully exercise the corresponding administrative and judicial remedies, including after the deportation has been carried out.

VII. Protecting those who defend digital rights

The Ola Bini case also has a dimension that goes beyond his individual situation.

Defending privacy, cybersecurity, freedom of expression, and human rights in digital environments is a legitimate and necessary activity in a democratic society.

Amnesty International has stated that the work of people defending digital rights and privacy is essential to protecting human rights, and that the misuse of the criminal justice system against those who carry out this work can have an intimidating effect on other defenders. [1][7]

The State must therefore ensure that people who investigate cybersecurity vulnerabilities, develop security tools, protect communications, or defend digital rights can carry out their work without being subjected to undue criminalization, intimidation, or reprisals.

VIII. Our demands

The undersigned civil society organizations call on the Ecuadorian State to:

1. Fully guarantee Ola Bini’s fundamental rights, including his rights to liberty, due process, defense, judicial protection, and freedom of expression.
2. Ensure transparency and provide adequate reasoning for any immigration decision that has affected his residence, stay, or forced departure from Ecuador.
3. Provide and make public the administrative decision ordering the withdrawal, cancellation, or non-renewal of his visa, subject to legal limitations concerning personal data and other protected information.
4. Guarantee effective access to the applicable administrative and judicial remedies, including with respect to decisions that have already been executed.
5. Refrain from using administrative or immigration mechanisms as indirect forms of punishment for conduct related to a criminal proceeding.
6. Investigate possible violations of due process alleged and documented throughout the case, including those occurring during the immigration proceedings that culminated in his deportation, in accordance with the respective institutions’ mandates.
7. Guarantee full reparation whenever a competent authority determines that violations of rights occurred.
8. Guarantee the protection of human rights and digital rights defenders, avoiding practices that may have an intimidating effect on their work.
9. Ensure that no criminal or administrative proceeding is used to criminalize the legitimate exercise of rights, the defense of privacy, digital security, freedom of expression, or technical research.
10. To explain and make transparent the reasons that motivated the intelligence activities carried out against Ola Bini, and that served as the justification for the revocation of his visa.

IX. Final call

The Ola Bini case has been monitored for years by national and international human rights and digital rights organizations. The available documentation shows that, since his detention in 2019, there have been serious concerns regarding the legality of his deprivation of liberty, the presumption of innocence, the independence of the proceedings, the collection and assessment of evidence, and the duration of the judicial proceedings. [1][4][5][6]

The fact that the proceedings ended through a declaration that the case was time-barred does not eliminate the need to examine the human rights violations that may have occurred during their course.

The subsequent revocation of Bini’s visa, detention, and deportation, carried out in October 2026, also raises serious new questions regarding respect for due process, the right to a defense, effective judicial protection, and access to the grounds for administrative decisions affecting fundamental rights.

We therefore call on Ecuadorian State institutions to ensure that any action concerning Ola Bini, including actions following his deportation, is carried out in strict compliance with the Constitution of the Republic, the American Convention on Human Rights, and other international human rights instruments.

Defending human rights, privacy, and digital rights is a legitimate activity in a democratic society and must be afforded effective protection.

Civil society organizations will remain vigilant and will continue to promote the full respect of human rights and due process guarantees in Ecuador.

Quito, Ecuador – 05/10/2026

REFERENCES

[1] Amnesty International. Ecuador: Human Rights Violations in Criminal Proceedings Against Ola Bini. Public statement, August 26, 2019. Index AMR 28/0871/2019.
https://www.amnesty.org/es/documents/amr28/0871/2019/es/

[2] Office of the Prosecutor General of Ecuador. Information on the Ola B. Case.
https://www.fiscalia.gob.ec/informacion-del-caso-ola-b/

[3] Amnesty International. Ecuador: Violent Raid Puts Ola Bini’s Right to a Fair Trial at Risk. September 6, 2019.
https://www.amnesty.org/es/latest/news/2019/09/ecuador-allanamiento-violento-pone-en-riesgo-juicio-justo-ola-bini-2/

[4] INREDH / Observation Mission. A Paradigmatic Proceeding for Human Rights in the Digital Age: The Ola Bini Case. May 11, 2022.
https://inredh.org/la-mision-de-observacion-presento-su-informe-sobre-el-proceso-penal-en-contra-del-activista-sueco/

[5] Observation Mission / INREDH. Observation Report on the Evidentiary and Preparatory Hearing in the Ola Bini Case.
https://www.inredh.org/archivos/pdf/reporte_de_observacion_caso_ola_bini.pdf

[6] Inter-American Commission on Human Rights – Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. 2025 Annual Report.
https://www.oas.org/es/cidh/expresion/informes/IARELE2025.pdf

[7] Amnesty International. Ecuador: Authorities Must Monitor the Trial of Digital Rights Defender Ola Bini. March 3, 2020.
https://www.amnesty.org/es/latest/news/2020/03/ecuador-authorities-must-monitor-trial-digital-defender-ola-bini/

[8] Primicias. Ola Bini says he was deported from Ecuador after being detained in Quito. October 2, 2026; and Primicias. Ola Bini files habeas corpus petition after being detained in Quito, according to SATJE records. October 1, 2026.
https://www.primicias.ec/seguridad/deportacion-ola-bini-audiencia-migracion-quito-informe-reservado-ecuador-133947/ https://www.primicias.ec/seguridad/ola-bini-retenido-quito-migracion-ecuador-deportacion-satje-133924/

[9] Primicias. Ola Bini announces that he arrived in Sweden following deportation from Ecuador. October 3, 2026.
https://www.primicias.ec/seguridad/ola-bini-llegada-suecia-deportacion-ecuador-134077/

Signatory civil society organizations and collectives:

LaLibre Tecnologias Comunitarias

Comité Permanente por la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos (CDH)

Bolena. Género y Derechos

Taller de Comunicación Mujer – Ecuador

Fundación Openlab Ecuador – Ecuador

Alianza de Organizaciones por los Derechos Humanos del Ecuador

MariaLab – Brasil

CryptoRave – Brasil

Fundación Acceso – Centroamérica

Derechos Digitales – América Latina

SocialTIC – México

Fundación Karisma – Colombia

Digital Action – Global

Cooperativa Tierra Común – México

TEDIC – Paraguay

Sursiendo – México

Fantsuam Foundation – Nigeria

Fundación Datalat – Ecuador

Centro de Documentación en Derechos Humanos “Segundo Montes Mozo SJ” (CSMM) – Ecuador

ISUR – Colombia

Electronic Frontier Foundation – Global

Wambra medio comunitario

Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones (APC) – Global