to the seriousness of the offense, the case should have been examined in greater depth.64 54. On July 19, 2000, the Superior Court of Justice of Huánuco-Pasco issued another judgment acquitting the presumed victim of the offense of complicity and convicting him of the offense of breach of trust.65 The parties appealed this decision.66 On December 26, 2000, a second instance judgment declared that judgment null and void and ordered the issue of a new judgment.67 55. On June 21, 2005, the Superior Court of Justice of Huánuco-Pasco issued a judgment acquitting Mr. Cordero Bernal of both the offenses of which he had been accused.68 It also required the annulment of his police and criminal record. This decision was appealed by the Superior Prosecutor who requested that the first instance judgment be declared null and void because the responsibility of the accused had been proved.69 56. On August 22, 2005, a second instance judgment confirmed the decision of June 21 that year,70 considering that the decision granting unconditional release was a jurisdictional act that could have been amended by a higher authority as, indeed, occurred. In addition, the judgment indicated that the active subject of the offense of complicity could not be a judge and that “the offense of breach of trust is not committed through negligence.”71 On August 25, 2005, the Decentralized Anti-corruption Prosecutor of the Judicial District of HuánucoPasco filed an appeal for annulment, which was declared inadmissible on September 1, 2005.72 G. Appeal for annulment 57. On November 17, 2005, Mr. Cordero Bernal filed an appeal for annulment against the CNM’s decision of August 14, 1996, and requested his reinstatement in office. He argued that a judgment had been issued acquitting him and that, when the sanction of dismissal had been imposed on him, two laws were in force and the one less favorable to his interests had been applied.73 58. On December 30, 2005, the CNM issued Decision No. 1198-2005-CNM declaring the annulment inappropriate and the request for reinstatement to the post inadmissible. It indicated that the presumed victim had not filed an appeal for review against the contested decision and, therefore, the decision had the effects of res judicata, and also that criminal responsibility should not be confused with disciplinary responsibility. It also indicated that the CNM’s functions did not include reinstating dismissed judges to the exercise of their office.74 59. On January 25, 2006, Mr. Cordero Bernal filed an appeal against Decision No. 1198- 64 Cf. Judgment of March 30, 2000 (evidence file, folio 176). 65 Cf. Superior Court of Justice of Huánuco. Judgment of July 19, 2000 (evidence file, folios 178 to 187). 66 Cf. Remedy of appeal filed after the reading of the judgment, July 19, 2000 (evidence file, folio 190). 67 Cf. Judgment of September 26, 2000 (evidence file, folios 192 and 193). 68 Cf. Superior Court of Justice of Huánuco. Judgment of June 21, 2005 (evidence file, folios 195 to 203). 69 Cf. Superior Prosecutor. Appeal against judgment, July 12, 2005 (evidence file, folio 205). 70 Cf. Decision confirming judgment, August 22, 2005 (evidence file, folios 207 to 209). 71 Cf. Decision confirming judgment, August 22, 2005 (evidence file, folio 208). 72 Cf. First Superior Criminal Chamber of Huánuco. Decision of September 1, 2005 (evidence file, folio 213). Cf. Appeal for annulment of Decision No. 008-96/PCNM of the National Council of the Judiciary, November 17, 2005 (evidence file, folios 215 to 220). 73 Cf. National Council of the Judiciary, Decision 1198-2005-CNM, December 30, 2005 (evidence file, folios 222 to 224). 74 15