considering that the offense of abduction was subsumed within this. He also requested that Lieutenant Tello Delgado be deprived of liberty for 20 years and ineligible to exercise certain civil rights for five years, and that civil reparation of 50,000 soles be established. 185 On April 29, 2008, the National Criminal Chamber declared that there were grounds to proceed to the oral trial which would commence on May 19, 2008. 186 95. The oral proceeding concluded on December 17, 2008, when the National Criminal Chamber handed down its judgment in which it decided to acquit Lieutenant Tello Delgado of the charges he was accused of, considering that “it has been proved that the accused detained the victim and took him away, and that the latter has not been located since that date, which has caused suffering to his family members and which has been affecting them for more than 17 years; but also, there are serious doubts regarding the responsibility of the accused in the said acts that he is charged with; a doubt that is favorable to him in application of the constitutional principle of in dubio pro reo.” 187 The representative of the Public Prosecution Service filed an application to annul this judgment. 188 96. On June 24, 2010, the Transitory Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic declared that the judgment of December 17, 2008, was null, considering that the evidence has not been properly assessed, and ordered that a new oral proceeding be held. 189 97. The new oral proceeding consisted of 42 sessions held between November 16, 2010, and November 4, 2011, 190 the date on which the judgment was read, which, once again, acquitted Lieutenant Tello Delgado because there was a “reasonable doubt regarding the supposed perpetration of the offense of enforced disappearance by the accused Tello Delgado as the person having command responsibility in this case.” 191 Following the reading of the judgment, the representative of the Public Prosecution Service and the civil party filed appeals for a declaration of nullity. 192 98. On November 21, 2011, the National Criminal Chamber granted the appeal for a declaration of nullity and ordered that the proceedings be forwarded to the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme 185 Cf. Report No. 119-2007-2aFSPN-MP-FN of October 30, 2007 (evidence file, volume X, annex 82 to the State’s answering brief, folios 4997 to 5004). 186 Cf. Decision No. 240 issued by the National Criminal Chamber on April 29, 2008 (evidence file, volume X, annex 83 to the State’s answering brief, folios 5006 to 5009). 187 Judgment delivered by the National Criminal Chamber on December 17, 2008 (evidence file, volume IX, annex 20 to the State’s answering brief, folios 4750 and 4751). 188 Cf. Record corresponding to the thirtieth session of the oral proceeding held before the National Criminal Chamber on December 17, 2008 (evidence file, volume X, annex 85 to the State’s answering brief, folio 5019). 189 Cf. Supreme final judgment delivered by the Transitory Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic on June 24, 2010 (evidence file, volume X, annex 89 to the State’s answering brief, folios 5034 to 5038). 190 Cf. Record corresponding to the first session of the oral proceeding held before the National Criminal Chamber on November 16, 2010 (evidence file, volume X, annex 91 to the State’s answering brief, folios 5042 and 5043), and Record corresponding to the forty-second session of the oral proceeding held before the National Criminal Chamber on November 4, 2011 (evidence file, volume X, annex 92 to the State’s answering brief, folios 5045 to 5047). 191 Judgment delivered by the National Criminal Chamber on November 4, 2011 (evidence file, volume IX, annex 12 to the State’s answering brief, folios 4506 to 4582). 192 Cf. Record corresponding to the forty-second session of the oral proceeding held before the National Criminal Chamber on November 4, 2011 (evidence file, volume X, annex 92 to the State’s answering brief, folio 5047) and Brief of the civil party of November 4, 2011 (evidence file, volume X, annex 93 to the State’s answering brief, folio 5049). 36