16 61. On July 18, 2001, the Sixth Court for Civil Matters of Pichincha denied the amparo action brought by Homero Flor.52 In its analysis of why it denied the amparo sought, the Sixth Court for Civil Matters noted that in the matter suspension of the summary information proceeding was sought, and that as this is an investigative process, the amparo action is out of order, because it was not directed against an act itself with respect to which the Court could make a finding of its illegitimacy.53 62. As for the January 17, 2001 resolution of the Court of Law by which it endorsed the report of the military prosecutor and established the disciplinary liability of Mr. Flor and the other soldier, the Court considered that as it was a decision emanating from the military criminal judicial authority it could be challenged at higher levels in keeping with the provisions of the Organic Law of the Judicial Service of the Armed Forces. Accordingly, it established that the resolution challenged “ha[d] not become final and binding,” thus in light of the subsidiary nature of the amparo action, it was out of order.54 The Court also noted that according to the Constitution, “judicial decisions adopted in a proceeding are not susceptible to an amparo action.” 55 63. The decision also took into account that Homero Flor “ha[d] been at that time placed on leave, but not by the will … of his superiors, but by statutory and regulatory mandate, without [having] been stripped of his rank, his salary, because the resolution [was] not yet final, which remove[d] the requirement of grave and imminent harm that is required for filing this action.”56 b. Appeal of the decision of the Sixth Court for Civil Matters of Pichincha 64. On July 20, 2001, Homero Flor filed a motion to appeal the decision of July 18, 2001 of the Sixth Court for Civil Matters of Pichincha.57 In his appellate brief he argued that the court had not ruled on some of the grounds set forth in support of the constitutional amparo action. For example, he argued that no consideration was offered on the decriminalization of the “crime of homosexualism” in Ecuador, and whether “the decriminalization of the infraction in question [was] equally applicable to civilians and members of the military.”58 He also argued that during the time the case was before the Sixth Court for Civil Matters and when its decision was issued, the “administrative-military” remedy had 52 Annex 20. Decision of the Sixth Court for Civil Matters of Pichincha, July 18, 2001. Annex to the initial petition of August 20, 2002. 53 Annex 20. Decision of the Sixth Court for Civil Matters of Pichincha, July 18, 2001. Annex to the initial petition of August 20, 2002. 54 Annex 20. Decision of the Sixth Court for Civil Matters of Pichincha, July 18, 2001. Annex to the initial petition of August 20, 2002. 55 Annex 20. Decision of the Sixth Court for Civil Matters of Pichincha, July 18, 2001. Annex to the initial petition of August 20, 2002. 56 Annex 20. Decision of the Sixth Court for Civil Matters of Pichincha, July 18, 2001. Annex to the initial petition of August 20, 2002. 57 Annex 21. Motion of appeal against the decision of July 18, 2001 of the Sixth Court for Civil Matters of Pichincha in constitutional amparo action No. 74-2001, of July 20, 2001. Annex to the initial petition of August 20, 2002. 58 Annex 21. Motion of appeal against the decision of July 18, 2001 of the Sixth Court for Civil Matters of Pichincha in constitutional amparo action No. 74-2001, of July 20, 2001. Annex to the initial petition of August 20, 2002.