12 record, as Mr. Flor alleges. Nonetheless, the IACHR notes that these allegations on due process were aired within the mechanisms pursued by the alleged victim to claim his right to defense and due process at the stage of the proceeding where it was decided to discharge him from the Armed Forces. 45. In a session held June 4, 2001, the Council of Subaltern Officers denied the motion for reconsideration, considering that the “factual and legal grounds that motivated [the resolution whose reconsideration was sought] were still in place.”26 Notice of the decision was given to Homero Flor on June 5, 2001.27 The information available indicates that Homero Flor filed a motion for appeal with the Council of Superior Officers of the Armed Forces to challenge the decision by the Council of Subaltern Officers.28 46. In a session held July 18, 2001, the Council of Superior Officers of the Army decided to dismiss the appeal and affirmed in all its terms the resolution adopted by the Council of Subaltern Officers.29 Homero Flor was notified of that decision the same day.30 3. Constitutional amparo action No. 74-2001 47. After the Resolution by the Court of Law of January 17, 2001, that decided to support the report of the prosecutor indicating that there was disciplinary liability, Mr. Homero Flor filed a constitutional amparo action before the Superior Court of Justice of Quito on January 23, 2001.31 On January 24, 2001, the case was assigned to the Sixth Court for Civil Matters of Pichincha under case No. 74-2001.32 48. The action was brought against the President of the Republic in his capacity as Chief of the Armed Forces of Ecuador; the Minister of National Defense, the Commanding General of the Army, and the General Prosecutor of the State (Procurador General del Estado). In addition, Homero Flor’s representative requested suspension of the summary information proceeding, which at that time was before the Commander of the Army, as well as suspension of the effects of the ruling by the Court of Law of January 17, 2001.33 26 Annex 7. Memorandum No. 2001-10-COSB of the Council of Subaltern Officers of the Army, June 5, 2001. Annex to the initial petition of August 20, 2002. 27 Annex 7. Memorandum No. 2001-10-COSB of the Council of Subaltern Officers of the Army, June 5, 2001. Annex to the initial petition of August 20, 2002. 28 The Commission does not have a copy of this document. Nonetheless, the record before the IACHR does include the decision that resolved that appeal. In this respect, see: Annex 8. Resolution of the Council of Superior Officers. Memorandum No. 210090-COSFT, July 18, 2001. Annex to the petitioners’ brief of April 12, 2004. 29 Annex 8. Resolution of the Council of Superior Officers. Memorandum No. 210090-COSFT, July 18, 2001. Annex to the petitioners’ brief of April 12, 2004. 30 Annex 8. Resolution of the Council of Superior Officers. Memorandum No. 210090-COSFT, July 18, 2001. Annex to the petitioners’ brief of April 12, 2004. 31 Annex 3. Constitutional amparo action filed by Homero Flor Freire before the Judge for Civil Matters, January 23, 2001. Annex to the initial petition of August 20, 2002. 32 Annex 9. Official note from the Superior Court of Justice of Quito, Office of Assignments and of Drawings and Judicial Mailboxes, January 24, 2001. Annex to the initial petition of August 20, 2002. 33 Annex 3. Constitutional amparo action filed by Homero Flor Freire before the Judge for Civil Matters, January 23, 2001. Annex to the initial petition of August 20, 2002.