71. Furthermore, in July 1996,65 Mr. Grijalva Bueno and another defendant submitted their written observations regarding the prosecutor’s accusatory report against them, requesting that the judge of the First Naval Zone issue a final dismissal order. In this regard, they indicated, inter alia, that: […] the prosecutor merely mentions and repeats the only concrete charges that have been brought against [them]: the complaints made by [ER] and [RG]. […] [However,] all the investigations, inquiries and verifications are always reduced to the same thing: the accusations […without] being able to prove absolutely anything with respect to the charges made by [ER] and [RG] [… this being fundamental, since,] the law requires that the judge, in order to convict, must have found evidence of what the accusers claim […] [according to [Article] 124 of the ordinary Code of Criminal Procedure, applicable to military trials. [In addition,] the aforementioned [ER] and [RG] were repeatedly asked to personally appear in Guayaquil to testify before [them and their] attorney; but the examining judge, instead of requiring their appearance, and using the powers granted to him by law, preferred to go to Puerto Bolívar to receive their statements.66 72. According to a note from the priest JP, on July 9, 1996, he sent a communication to the Commander of the Navy informing him that RG had told him that he did not know Mr. Grijalva and that a military agent had given him money in exchange for using his name to file the complaint.67 73. On August 7, 1996, an order was issued calling for full trial against the defendants Vicente Aníbal Grijalva Bueno and JS, as alleged perpetrator and accomplice,68 respectively, for the offense defined and punished in Article 146, paragraphs 4 and 8 of the Military Criminal Code. 69 On August 8, 1996, Mr. Grijalva and the other defendant appealed the order for a full trial.70 74. On September 2, 1996, the Military Court of the First Military Zone submitted the case files to the Court of Military Justice.71 75. On June 5, 1998, the Military Court of Justice dismissed the appeals filed by the defendants and confirmed the order calling for a trial.72 76. On September 10, 1998, the Zone Commander and Military Judge of the First Naval Zone, in accordance with the provisions of Article 73 of the Code of Military It is noted that the cited document is dated July 1996, but the exact date is not recorded. Cf. Response to the prosecutor’s opinion, sent to the judge of the First Naval Zone by Vicente Grijalva Bueno and SR, Criminal Case No. 06-94, July 1996 (evidence file, folios 114 and 115). 66 Cf. Response to the prosecutor’s opinion, July 1996, supra. 67 Cf. Letter from the priest JP to the Navy Commander, July 9, 1996 (evidence file, folio 100). 68 Cf. Summons to a full trial issued by the Military Court of the First Naval Zone of August 7, 1996 (evidence file, folios 4453 to 4482). 69 "Article. 146. The following are responsible for abuse of their powers and shall be punished with a prison term of three months to two years: [...] 4. Those who, in the exercise of their authority or command, exceed their legal powers or deviate from the instructions of their superiors; 8. Those who make requisitions, impose illegal war contributions, take booty or commit other abuses or extortion.” Cf. Military Criminal Code in force at the time of the facts (evidence file, folio 4908). 70 Cf. Brief of Mr. Grijalva Bueno and another presented before the Military Court of the First Military Zone on August 8, 1996 (evidence file, folio 4485). 71 Cf. Order to refer the appeal to the Military Court of Justice issued on September 2, 1996 (evidence file, folio 4487). 72 Cf. Order of the Court of Military Justice of June 5, 1998 (evidence file, folios 4490 to 4493). 65 20