reverse the shelving of the case and asked to see testimony regarding the proceedings that had led to it being shelved.80 5. The disappearance of Oscar Tassino Asteazu 71. According to the complaint filed by the alleged victim's wife, Disnarda Flores de Tassino, at 8:00 p.m. on July 19, 1977, three armed individuals dressed in civilian clothes and claiming to be members of the Joint Forces arrived at the property located at Máximo Tajes 6632. They threatened the persons present at the property, while they waited for Oscar Tassino to arrive. She reported that when he arrived one hour later, he was violently pushed into the house, deprived of his possessions, and taken to one of the bedrooms where he was allegedly beaten. She pointed out that at 9:30 a.m. of the next day he was taken out of there with his face covered and while being beaten. He stated that subsequently Mr. Tassino had been seen in a clandestine detention center by people who say he was subjected to "horrific forms of torture."81 72. She stated that when she complained to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, she was told that her husband had not been arrested by them but that he had been subpoenaed to appear since May 1, 1977 and that she should go to the National Information and Intelligence Directorate of the Office of the Chief of Police in Montevideo. She reported that there they told her that her husband had been detained in January 1974 and released four days later. The petitioner state that the detention they were referring to had had to do with his trade union activity, had not lasted even one day, and that it had not been in January.82 6. The investigation into the disappearance of Oscar Tassino Asteazu 73. On June 26, 1985, Disnarda Flores de Tassino filed a complaint for the alleged disappearance and torture of her husband Oscar Tassino Asteazu.83 In connection with that denunciation, she requested that evidence be gathered, including the taking of testimony and asking the Ministry of National Defense for the names of the officers and non-commissioned officers in charge of the operation of July 19, 1977.84 There is no record in the file that those or any other actions having been taken. 74. On September 24, 1985, a conflict 85 arose between the ordinary and the military judicial system with respect to competence in the case.86 On February 18, 1987, the Supreme Court of Justice referred the case to the Ninth First Instance Criminal Court.87 Appendix 1.31. Application by Amalia González requesting the Eleventh First Instance Criminal Court to reverse the shelving of the case and asking to see testimony regarding the proceedings that had led to it being shelved. Attached to the petitioner's brief of August 15, 2007. 81 Appendix 3.1. Complaint filed by Disnarda Flores regarding the disappearance of Oscar Tassino Asteazu. Attached to the petitioner's brief of August 15, 2007. 82 Appendix 3.1. Complaint filed by Disnarda Flores regarding the disappearance of Oscar Tassino Asteazu. Attached to the petitioner's brief of August 15, 2007. 83 Appendix 3.1. Complaint filed by Disnarda Flores regarding the disappearance of Oscar Tassino Asteazu. Attached to the petitioner's brief of August 15, 2007. 84 Appendix 3.1. Complaint filed by Disnarda Flores regarding the disappearance of Oscar Tassino Asteazu. Attached to the petitioner's brief of August 15, 2007. 85 The conflict arose from a request to decline competence filed by the Third Military Court of First Instance with the Ninth First Instance Criminal Court, stating that the report of the "Investigative Committee on the Situation of Missing Persons and the Facts that led to their Disappearance" had pointed to facts relating to actions taken by the Armed Forces that could affect juridical rights protected by the Ordinary Criminal Code and by the Military Criminal Code thereby generating, in the opinion of the military first instance court a conflict of competence between the two jurisdictions. Appendix 3.2. First request by the military judge to the ordinary law judge to decline competence in the case. Attached to the petitioner's brief of August 15, 2007. 86 Appendix 3.2. First request by the military judge to the ordinary law judge to decline competence in the case. Attached to the petitioner's brief of August 15, 2007; Appendix 3.3. Opinion of the Public Prosecutor before the Supreme Court of Justice regarding the first competence dispute. Attached to the petitioner's brief of August 15, 2007; Appendix 3.4. Rejection by the ordinary law judge of the first request to decline competence. Attached to the petitioner's brief of August 15, 2007; Appendix 3.5. Second request by the Military Jurisdiction to the Ordinary Jurisdiction to decline competence in the Oscar Tassino case. Attached to the petitioner's brief of August 15, 2007; Appendix 3.6. Third request by the Military Jurisdiction to the Ordinary Jurisdiction to decline competence in the Oscar Tassino case. Attached to the petitioner's brief of August 15, 2007;. Appendix 3.7. Opinion of the Public Prosecutor before the Supreme Court of Justice regarding the third competence dispute. Attached to the petitioner's brief of August 15, 2007; Appendix 3.8. Referral by the Supreme Court of Justice of the case regarding the alleged disappearance and torture of Oscar Tassino Asteazu to the Ninth First Instance Criminal Court. Attached to the petitioner's brief of August 15, 2007. 87. Appendix 3.8. Referral by the Supreme Court of Justice of the case regarding the alleged disappearance and torture of Oscar Tassino Asteazu to the Ninth First Instance Criminal Court. Attached to the petitioner's brief of August 15, 2007. 80 14