19 Proceedings before the civilian courts 73. On December 23, 2002, the 5th Criminal Court of Huancayo expanded the scope of the summary investigation against noncommissioned officer Juan Hilaquita Quispe for the offense against public administration in the manner of abuse of authority to the prejudice of the Peruvian State and of Valdemir Quispealaya Vilcapoma, issuing a restricted warrant to appear and fixing, among others, a bond of 500 nuevos soles.59 74. On March 12, 2003, the Judge of the 5th Criminal Court of Huancayo recorded in the case file that the military courts had resisted putting the defendant Juan Hilaquita Quispe at the disposition of the civilian courts, and his detention in an ordinary penal establishment, as the order to open the investigation had instructed, which had been confirmed by the Superior Criminal Chamber.60 The 5th Criminal Judge of Huancayo similarly recorded that when the procedural step of judicial inspection was carried out, the Judicial Police had been present to carry out the detention, but they were physically and violently prevented by members of the military and by the defendant’s lawyer, which constituted the criminal offense of resisting arrest and disobedience.61 Contest for jurisdiction 75. On April 14, 2003, the Second Supreme Prosecutor in Criminal Matters submitted his opinion regarding the contest for jurisdiction presented by the Permanent Military Judge of Huancayo on November 19, 2002, indicating that although it might be true that the perpetrator and the victim belonged to the Peruvian Army and the acts occurred in a military installation, the events described were of such a seriousness, according to the Medical-legal Report prepared by the Central Military Hospital and the Medical-legal Certificate, which indicated that the victim presented total and permanent loss of vision in his right eye, as well as the forensic psychological examination, that they fell beyond the scope of a proceeding for abuse of authority in the military courts.62 In summary, the prosecutor’s opinion concluded that the events were defined by Article 121(2) of the Criminal Code, for which reason they should be dealt with in the Civil Jurisdiction.63 76. On May 12, 2003, the Permanent Criminal Court of the Supreme Court resolved the conflict of jurisdiction in favor of the military courts, based on the reasoning that the events that were 59 Annex 14. Instruction No. 2002-0783, Resolution of December 23, 2002. Annex 18 of the petitioners’ communication of February 5, 2006. 60 Annex 15. Instruction No. 2002-783. Resolution of March 12, 2003, signed by José Guzmán Tasayco, 5th Criminal Judge of the Criminal Court of Huancayo and the Learned Secretary of the former court. Annex 20 of the petitioners’ communication of February 5, 2006. 61 Annex 15. Instruction No. 2002-783. Resolution of March 12, 2003, signed by José Guzmán Tasayco, 5th Criminal Judge of the Criminal Court of Huancayo and the Learned Secretary of the former court. Annex 20 of the petitioners’ communication of February 5, 2006. 62 Annex 38. Office of the Attorney General, Second Supreme Public Prosecutor in Criminal Matters. Opinion No. 605-03-FN-MP-2º FSP of April 14, 2003. Signed by Dr. Miguel Ángel Sánchez Arteaga, Supreme Public Prosecutor of the Second Supreme Public Prosecutor for Criminal Matters. Annex 23 of the petitioners’ communication of February 5, 2006. 63 Annex 38. Office of the Attorney General, Second Supreme Public Prosecutor in Criminal Matters. Opinion No. 605-03-FN-MP-2º FSP of April 14, 2003. Signed by Dr. Miguel Ángel Sánchez Arteaga, Supreme Public Prosecutor of the Second Supreme Public Prosecutor for Criminal Matters. Annex 23 of the petitioners’ communication of February 5, 2006.