48 63(75) On May 31, 1993 the Prosecutor (“Ministro Sumariante”) of the Court of Appeals conducted the preliminary criminal investigation and requested the claimant to identify “accurately and definitively the officer allegedly affected by the facts [...], who held the position of Naval Prosecutor when the facts took place.”124124 On June 2, 1993 the Interim Prosecutor of the Court of Appeals of Punta Arenas, pursuant to “subparagraph a) of section 27 of Law No. 12,927[…,] request[ed], as a first action, that a comprehensive order to investigate be issued, in order to establish the corpus delicti and the responsibility of the defendant, including that which may be derived from the latter during the preliminary investigation.” Said section provides that “immediately after receiving a complaint stating that civilians have committed one of the crimes mentioned in the previous section,” including the crime of contempt, “the President of the Court shall forward it to the incumbent Judge, so that the case may be removed to a higher court [...and] processed under the rules established in Title II of Book II of the Code of Military Justice, which deals with criminal procedure in times of peace, with the amendments and additions mentioned therein.”125 63(76) On June 3, 1993, the Court of Appeals summoned Mr. Palamara-Iribarne to testify, “under penalty of arrest,” which he did before said Court on June 8, 1993.126 63(77) On June 14, 1993, the Prosecutor of the Court of Appeals found that he had no jurisdiction to hear case No. 103-93, which corresponded to the complaint filed by the Commander-in-Chief of the Third Naval Zone, Mr. Hugo Bruna-Greene, based on section 26 of Law 12,927, and referred the record of said case to the Naval Judge of Magallanes “so that it be heard and judgment be rendered.”127 Criminal Case No. 471/93 against Mr. Palamara-Iribarne brought before the Naval Court in and for Magallanes for the crime of contempt 63(78) On June 16, 1993 the Commander in Chief of the Third Naval Zone, Mr. Hugo Bruna-Greene, who was also the Naval Judge of Magallanes, found that “he was not qualified to hear and determine the facts giving rise to the complaint” filed against Mr. Palamara-Iribarne for committing the crime of contempt.128 appendixes to the complaint, volume V, appendix 10, folios 1925 to 1928). 124 Cf. Resolution issued by the Appellate Court Judge in charge of Investigations on May 31, 1993 (Case No. 471 before the Naval Court in and for Magallanes, for the crime of contempt, record of appendixes to the complaint, volume V, appendix 10, folio 1930). 125 Cf. Resolution issued by the Office of the Appellate Court Prosecutor on June 2, 1993 (Case No. 471 before the Naval Court in and for Magallanes, for the crime of contempt, record of appendixes to the complaint, volume V, appendix 10, folio 1934). 126 Cf. Statement rendered by Mr. Humberto Antonio Palamara-Iribarne before the Court of Appeals of Punta Arenas on June 8, 1993 (Case No. 471 before the Naval Court in and for Magallanes, for the crime of contempt, record of appendixes to the complaint, volume V, appendix 10, folios 1940 to 1943). 127 Cf. Official letter No. 737 issued by the Punta Arenas Appellate Court Minister in charge of Investigations on June 14, 1993 (Case No. 471 before the Naval Court in and for Magallanes, for the crime of contempt, record of appendixes to the complaint, volume V, appendix 10, folio 1944). 128 Cf. Resolution issued by the Naval Judge of Magallanes on June 16, 1993 (Case No. 471 before the Naval Court in and for Magallanes, for the crime of contempt, record of appendixes to the complaint, volume V, appendix 10, folio 1945).