80. On March 28, 2000, the preliminary hearing was put off until a later date because two of the defendants failed to appear78and the new date of April 4, 200079 was set for the hearing. On that date, the hearing was held before the Military Court, which decided to allow the charges to proceed against Jean Carlos Malpica and, taking into account that the acts performed by him were admitted by him during the preliminary hearing, he sentenced him to one year and ten months of prison for the crime of negligent homicide. With regard to the rest of the defendants, the Court dismissed the charges on the grounds that they were not “responsible for the crimes” and, with regard to the private criminal complaint, it established that the conduct of the defendants was inconsistent with the facts introduced at the preliminary hearing.80 81. This decision was appealed by the private defense attorney and the Office of the Military Prosecutor, with the later also filing a motion to observe the grounds for recusal set forth in the COPP [Organic Code of Criminal Procedure] in view of the decision issued by the Court Martial on July 22, 1999, and for the appeals court to order a new preliminary hearing before the Military Court of San Cristóbal, inasmuch as it was the jurisdiction in which the crimes took place. On May 29, 2000, the Court Martial partially granted the motions to appeal and partially vacated the proceedings of the preliminary hearing. Accordingly, it ordered the Military Court to appoint a substitute judge to conduct a new preliminary hearing,in which a ruling would be issued as to the rest of the military personnel under indictment. The decision denied the prosecutor’s motion to transfer the case to the jurisdiction of San Cristóbal, on the grounds thatthere was no final ruling, and a “rebuke” was issued to the Office of the Prosecutor for filing the motion.81 82. The Office of the Military Prosecutor and the private defense attorney filed a motion to appeal on cassation to the Supreme Court against this decision contending, among other things,a failure to provide a factual basis for the ruling by the Court Martial.82 On July 28, 2000, the Military Attorney General, National Guard Coronel Jaiber Alberto Núñez, filed a motion before the Court Martial for the appeals on cassation to be denied.83 On December 13, 2000, the Chamber for Criminal Cassations denied the appeal for cassation filed by the Military Office of the Prosecutor.84 78As is noted in Annex 57. Motion for appeal on cassation of the private defense attorney against the decision of the Court Martial of the Republic of May 29, 2000. Annex 2 to petitioners’ submission of August 28, 2000. 79Annex 58. Return receipt of notification of March 3, 2000 from the Standing Military Trial Court of Guasdualito. Annex to petitioners’ submission received on June 16, 2000. 80As is noted in Annex 49. Decision of the Court Martial of the Republic of May 29, 2000. Annex 1 of petitioner’s submission of August 28, 2000. 2000. 81Annex 48. Decision of the Court Martial of the Republic of May 29, 2000. Annex 1 of petitioner’s submission of August 28, 82Annex 57. Motion for appeal on cassation of the private defense attorney against the decision of the Court Martial of the Republic of May 29, 2000. Annex to petitioners’ submission of August 28, 2000; and Annex 59. Appeal of cassation filed by the Third Military Prosecutor of the city of San Cristóbal, of July 10, 2000. Annex 3 to petitioner’s submission of August 28, 2000. 83Annex 60. Request of the Military Attorney General, (National Guard) Coronel Jaiber Alberto Núñez, July 28, 2000. Annex 8 of petitioner’s submission of August 28, 2000. At a later date, Johan Alexis’s parents denounced before the media that the military authorities were violating their right to know the truth about the death of their son and those responsible for it; and that the Military Attorney General was not competent to intervene in the cassation appeal to the Supreme Court. They issued a public appeal to several authorities to ensure the protection of their rights in this case. Annex 61. Communication signed by Mrs. Zaida Hernández and Mr. Edgar Ortiz, undated. Sent to the magazine Revista Primicia. Annex 9 of petitioner’s submission of August 28, 2000. Also see: Annex 62. Press clipping of the daily newspaper Diario La Nación, Padres de Johan Alexis rechazan ingerencia (sic) del coronel Jaiber Nuñez[‘Parents of Johan Alexis reject meddling of Coronel Jaiber Nuñez’]. San Cristóbal, September 3, 2000. Annex N of petitioners’ submission of February 25, 2002. Press clipping from the daily newspaper Diario Los Andes, “Fiscal militar no debe intervenir en casos remitidos al Tribunal Supremo” [‘Military prosecutor should not interfere in cases sent to the Supreme Court’], October 10, 2000. Annex N of petitioners’ submission received on February 25, 2002. 84The decision establishes that the Court Martial denied the appeal, on the grounds that it “[…] entailed bringing the case back to the status of totally allowing the complaints brought by the prosecutor and the victims to proceed, […] at the intermediate phase, in the preliminary hearing, […and] prior to holding the oral trial proceedings […].” As can be gathered from the text of the decision, the Chamber for Criminal Cassation Appeals also took into account the appeal filed by the “accusing party.” However, the last part of the ruling establishes: Based on the foregoing reasons this Supreme Court of Justice, in the Chamber of Criminal Cassation, in Administering Justice on behalf of the Republic and by authority of the Law, DENIES AS GROUNDLESS, the appeal of cassation filed by the prosecutor. [continues …]