15 for the mentioned evidence. The Judge also ordered that a request be presented to the Director of the Provincial Health Authority of Napo, in the city of Tena, so that he may certify if certain physical evidence was at that health authority. Finally, the Judge ordered the appearance, before this Court, of Messrs. Jorge Luna, Edison Tobar, and Raúl Toapanta, the agents that captured Mr. Acosta Calderón.25 50(20)On August 26, 1991 the Judge of Criminal Matters of Lake Agrio reiterated his order that what was stated in the court orders of May 18, 1990 (supra para. 50(12)), August 20, 1990 (supra para. 50(15)), September 13, 1990 (supra para. 50(16)), October 3, 1990 (supra para. 50(17)), and November 27, 1990 (supra para. 50(19)) be complied with in order to establish the whereabouts of the physical evidence seized from Mr. Acosta Calderón.26 50(21)On October 8, 1991 Mr. Acosta Calderón presented a brief to the Judge of Criminal Matters of Lake Agrio, through which he stated that no evidence of drugs had been found to substantiate his detention. He also requested that his preliminary examination statement be received pursuant to Article 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedures regarding preventive detention, and that all evidence existing against him be considered objected. At the same time he pointed out that the cause followed against him was completely altered and flawed, since it contained testimonies foreign to it, as well as information regarding other cases.27 50(22) Given this situation, Mr. Acosta Calderón requested the filing of the cause as well as the reversal of the order of detention against him, since there was not material evidence of the alleged infraction, which made his detention an illegal one. Finally, he appointed Dr. Gino Cevallos as his defense counsel.28 50(23)On October 8, 1991 the Judge of Criminal Matters of Lake Agrio ordered that the preliminary proceedings be extended for fifteen days and that Mr. Acosta Calderón’s preliminary examination statement be taken within a 24 hour period, since it is not recorded in the process, “presuming that the clerk of the court of that time had not incorporated this proceeding in the file.”29 The Judge also pointed out that the case file included testimonies that did not belong to the process against Mr. Acosta Calderón. In the same manner, once again he ordered that it be specified if within the criminal cause there was proof of the physical evidence seized from Mr. Acosta Calderón. Finally, the Judge ordered again the appearance of Messrs. Jorge Luna Edison Tobar, and Raúl Toapanta, 25 Cfr. ruling of November 27, 1990 issued by the Criminal Judge of Lake Agrio (dossier of annexes to the petition, annex 10, leaf 128). 26 Cfr. ruling of August 26, 1991 issued by the Criminal Judge of Lake Agrio (dossier of annexes to the petition, annex 10, leaf 132). 27 Cfr. brief of the defense of October 8, 1991 presented by Mr. Acosta Calderón to the Criminal Judge of Lake Agrio (dossier of annexes to the petition, annex 10, leaf 133). 28 Cfr. brief of the defense of October 8, 1991 presented by Mr. Acosta Calderón to the Criminal Judge of Lake Agrio (dossier of annexes to the petition, annex 10, leaf 133). 29 Cfr. ruling of October 8, 1991 issued by the Criminal Judge of Lake Agrio (dossier of annexes to the petition, annex 10, leaf 139).