48. On September 25, 1994, the General Commander of the Leoncio Prado Detachment informed the alleged victim that, as a result of the investigation carried out by the Inspectorate of the detachment, he was accused: (i) in the ordinary criminal jurisdiction, for the crime of illicit drug trafficking contemplated in Article 296 of the Criminal Code, and (ii) in the military criminal jurisdiction, due to offense against the duty and dignity of the service, falsehood, negligence, offense against the administration of justice, abuse of authority and failure to obey a lawful order, contemplated in Articles 200, 299, 238, 302, 180 and 158 of the Code of Military Justice.44 C. Military disciplinary proceedings 49. In the administrative proceedings, on February 7, 1995, the Investigative Council for Junior Officers held a hearing in which the alleged victim did not participate because he was detained.45 It can be inferred from the minutes of the hearing that the Secretary of the Council, the CTP Infantry Colonel, indicated at that time that the Council could decide on the administrative status of that officer, even if he were not present, because there are legal provisions whereby if a summoned officer has a detention order his presence is not necessary,46 pursuant to Supreme Decree 9 of October 22, 1985, and Supreme Decree 049 of September, 1991.47 50. On February 7, 1995, the Investigative Council for Junior Officers recommended to the Army General Command to retire Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio as a disciplinary measure due to offenses against the honor, decorum, moral and military duties: offense against the duty and dignity of the service, falsehood, negligence, offense against the administration of justice, abuse of authority, failure to obey a lawful order and illicit drug trafficking, considering that he had authorized three drug-trafficking flights but reported only the last one and had permitted the installation of a laboratory to make basic cocaine paste, activities from which he obtained personal economic benefits; moreover, grenades were stolen from the base and he did not report their subsequent recovery.48 51. On March 3, 1995, the Army General Command decided to retire the alleged victim, considering only that “Legislative Decree 752 (Law on the Military Situation of the Officers of the Army, Navy and Air Force), in Article 55 subsection f and Article 61, regulates the transition to retirement as a disciplinary measure, establishing [in] Article 66 […] that an officer who is retired will remain in the reserve for up to two years after passing the age limit corresponding to his rank” and that “Supreme Decree 041 DE/SG of December 15, 1989, in Article 2 authorizes the Army General […] to approve personnel actions of junior officers of the institution.” No additional considerations are recorded in the decision.49 Cf. Communication of the General Commander of the Leoncio Prado detachment to Jorge Rosadio Villavicencio, September 25, 1994 (evidence file, folio 40). 45 Cf. Minutes of the Investigative Council for Junior Officers, Session No. 007-95 of February 7, 1995 (evidence file, folios 55-60). 46 Cf. Minutes of the Investigative Council for Junior Officers, Session No. 007-95 of February 7, 1995 (evidence file, folios 55-60). 47 Cf. Supreme Decree 09 of October 22, 1985, amended by Supreme Decree 049 of September 1991 (evidence file, folio 62). Article 14 of Supreme Decree 09 established that “personnel investigated due to a disciplinary measure and/or professional inadequacy will be heard and their evidence in answer to the charges will be examined; they must present their situation orally and answer the questions formulated by members of the Council.” However, this provision would not apply, according to Supreme Decree 049 (which amended 09), when the personnel under investigation is involved in a common crime, unrelated to the service, and the investigation or criminal judicial proceedings have issued a definitive detention order or conviction with a penalty of deprivation of liberty. 48 Cf. Minutes of the Investigative Council for Junior Officers, Session No. 007-95 of February 7, 1995 (evidence file, folios 55-60). 49 Cf. Order of the Army General Command, March 3, 1995 (evidence file, folios 82 and 83). 44 14