24. It further states that as the trial against Juan Ilaquita Quispe proceeded under military jurisdiction, the Fifth Military Criminal Court issued Final Report No. 005-2003/5to JMPH-2. ZJE on December 23, 2003. It stated as follows: VII. Analysis of the Facts Having concluded the present investigation and evaluated the evidence presented, it is established that the injured party, soldier SM QUISPIALAYA VILCAPOMA Valdemir, has a total and permanent loss of vision in the right eye, caused by advanced post-traumatic glaucoma and cataract, as certified in the Medical Report and the Legal Medical Certificate which appear on pages 47 and 95, and that this injury was produced by a blow or contusion in the ocular region of the right eye, as certified by the confirmation and testimony of Corporal San Felix ZAPANA CALISAYA and Dr. Carlos PAZ CABRERA, which can be found on pages 162, 163, 178 and 179. On December 5, 2000, the injured party suffered an accidental blow from an FAL gun to the right eye, which diminished his visual acuity, and on January 26, 2001, he again received a blow from the butt of an FAL to his forehead and the orbital area of his right eye, further impairing his vision, according to the records in the background information section of the Medical Report, the Legal Medical Certificate, and the preventive declaration of the injured party, soldier SM QUISPIALAYA VILCAPOMA Valdemir, which appear on pages 47, 95, 70 and 71. As regards the blow from the FAL rifle butt, which the defendant, Soldier HILAQYUITA QUISPE Juan, inflicted on the injured party on January 26, 2002, during a shooting exercise, the direct accusation of the injured party is corroborated only by the testimony of former Corporal SM HUAYRA ARANCIBIA Edson, which appears on pages 39, 40 and 41, a piece of evidence which does not irrefutably verify the responsibility of the defendant, when considered together with the 15 statements of testimony by military personnel who were at the shooting practice, who emphatically declared that they had not seen the defendant wield a blow, and that, on the contrary, the injured party had entered the military service with vision problems. This account is corroborated by the statement of Mrs. Hayda Isoliza CONDEZO, director of the Institute Superior Juan Enrique PESTALOZI, where the injured party attended courses prior to entering the military service. (This testimony appears on pages 173 and 174.) Further support comes from the judicial inspection conducted by the ordinary court that was part of the proceeding, which showed that the Azapampa firing range is an open place, where personnel from the OO, TCOS, and SSOO who were there could have easily seen any abuse. Consequently, in the course of this investigation, it has been proven that that the injured party has a loss of vision in his right eye, produced by a blow to the ocular area, that could have been the result of a blow caused by the injured party as he was maintaining his FAL. In any event, since it cannot be irrefutably proven that the defendant was the perpetrator of the blow that occurred during the shooting practice, in application of the principle of indubio pro reo, the defendant SO1 OC HILAQUITA QUISPE Juan, is neither responsible nor liable for penal sanctions. VIII. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth, the judge of the Fifth Permanent Military Court of Huancayo is of the OPINION: That SO1 OC HILAQUITA QUISPE Juan is neither the perpetrator nor responsible for the crime of abuse of authority, established and penalized in Article 180, para. 2 of the Code of Military Justice. 25. Finally, the State reiterates that the facts which have affected the personal integrity of the presumed victim do not constitute a crime of torture but only of serious injuries, in accordance 4