D. Ordinary criminal proceedings 52. On September 15, 1994, Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio, gave his statement before the Examining Judge of the National Police of Peru at the Leoncio Prado Detachment of the Army of Peru. On September 22, 1994, at the office of the Leoncio Prado Detachment, Colonel M (alias “JANO”) gave his statement before the examining judge, during which JRH acted as his advisor.50 53. On September 23, 1994, the National Anti-Drug Department of the National Police of Peru submitted a complaint before the Second District Attorney’s Office of San Martín Tarapoto against the alleged victim and other persons for the crime of illicit drug trafficking. 51 54. On September 28, 1994, the Judge of Mixed First Instance opened an investigation with a detention order against the alleged victim and other persons for the crime “against public health due to illicit drug trafficking,” considering that they “actively participated in covering up the illegal crime denounced […].”52 55. On February 6, 1995, the alleged victim and other codefendants requested unconditional release, arguing that there was no procedural risk that “we will avoid justice or interfere with the production of evidence […]” and quoted Article 201 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, modified by the Decriminalization Law,53 which established that “if at any time during the investigation it is demonstrated that the accused is not guilty, the Judge, ex officio or at the request of the accused, shall order his unconditional release […].”54 On February 9, 1995, the Judge of Mixed First Instance declared the request inadmissible, stating that Article 201 was not applicable.55 56. On February 13, 1995, the alleged victim and other codefendants filed an appeal, considering that the order deviates from the law, because the proceedings had not proven the crime that they were accused of.56 On April 24, 1995, the Supreme Court of Justice of dismissed the appeal with regard to the alleged victim, but admitted it for the codefendants. It indicated that the actions of the alleged victim were “serious” since he failed to follow the instructions given by his command and he misappropriated the dollars received for personal benefit.57 Cf. Statement of Colonel M before the Examining Judge of September 22, 1994 (evidence file, folios 32 to 36). Cf. Complaint of the National Anti-Drug Department of the National Police of Peru of September 23, 1994 (evidence file, folios 152-195). As indicated in the complaint, the Department considered that there were certain indications that the alleged victim committed a crime, namely: i) they seized a deposit slip for USD 2,000 destined for the mother of the accused, derived from drug trafficking; ii) he authorized the departure of aircraft loaded with drugs on three different occasions and he received USD 13,000 from [AOZH] for those authorizations; iii) he distributed the money received between his personnel and himself, and iv) he allowed several drug traffickers to set up an operation center for their illicit activities within the area that he was responsible for. 52 Cf. Order of the Judge of Mixed First Instance of September 28, 1994 (evidence file, folio 199). 53 Cf. Request for the unconditional release of Jorge Enrique Rosadio Villavicencio et al. of February 7, 1995 (evidence file, folio 389). 54 Cf. Code of Criminal Procedure of Peru (evidence file, folios 3618-3740). 55 Cf. Decision of the Judge of Mixed First Instance of February 9, 1995 (evidence file, folios 391-392). 56 Cf. Appeal filed by Jorge Enrique Rosadio Villavicencio et al. on February 13, 1995 (evidence file, folio 394). 57 Cf. Decision on the appeal by the Superior Court of Justice San Martín of April 24, 1995 (evidence file, folios 399 to 403). 50 51 15