Guarantees. On September 12, 1995, the Court issued Decision No. 181-95-CP in which it confirmed that Mr. Grijalva and other persons: […] were punished for misconduct, in an informal process in which the defendants’ right of defense was restricted, not only because they were not notified in a timely manner of all the charges against them, but also because the corresponding case files were not presented, despite the insistence of the timely request made in this respect.33 54. The Court of Constitutional Guarantees established that the procedure for placing the petitioners on leave and discharging them violated the rules set forth in Article 19 (d) paragraph 17 of the Constitution. Therefore, it considered that Executive Decree No. 772 of May 18, 1993, was “unconstitutional, the final outcome of a complex act that was unconstitutionally born.” Consequently, the Court of Constitutional Guarantees admitted the appeal and granted “a period of thirty days to reinstate [the petitioners] in the armed forces and restore all their rights.”34 55. On September 28, 1995, the Ministry of National Defense sent a document to the President of the Court of Constitutional Guarantees arguing that the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces did not commit unconstitutional or illegal acts and that by “[…] ordering the reinstatement of undesirable elements [...] we would be deliberately fomenting indiscipline, disrespect for the military hierarchy and its organs.”35 In October 1995, the Commander General of the Navy asked the Constitutional Court to suspend compliance with the aforementioned decision until a final ruling from the Military Justice.36 On March 12, 1996, the aforementioned Court rejected said request for the following reasons: […] 1. Because to accept that a criminal prosecution may suspend compliance with a resolution of the Court would be to violate the principle of constitutionality of the presumption of innocence; 2. Because it is not the Court that has to comply with the provisions that it issues, but in the present case, the President of the Republic, the Council of Crew Personnel, the Council of Senior Officers of the Navy, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces and the Commander General of the Navy; and 3. Because the decisions of the Court are subject to the presumptions of legitimacy and enforceability, for which reason it is unacceptable that an administrative act that is binding should be subordinated to the eventuality of the results of a criminal trial.37 56. Subsequently, between June and October 1998, Mr. Grijalva Bueno sent a series of communications to the Anticorruption Commission, the Attorney General, the President of the Constitutional Court and the President of the Republic, protesting at the Navy’s disregard for the rulings of the Court of Constitutional Guarantees and denouncing irregularities in the administrative procedure against him. 38 57. On August 27, 2007, the Commander General of the Navy indicated to the Minister of National Defense that “because indications of criminal responsibility were found, the respective military criminal trial was initiated against CPCB Vicente Aníbal Grijalva Bueno and others” and requested the suspension of compliance with the ruling of September 12, 1995, since the Criminal Code states that “any prison sentence entails Cf. Court of Constitutional Guarantees. Decision No. 181-95–CP, supra. Cf. Court of Constitutional Guarantees. Decision No. 181-95–CP, supra. 35 Cf. Ministry of National Defense, official letter sent by the Minister of National Defense to the President of the Constitutional Court (evidence file, folios 158 to 160). 36 Cf. General Commander of the Navy, request for suspension of compliance with Decision No. 18195–CP (evidence file, folio 162). 37 Cf. Court of Constitutional Guarantees, case No. 83/93, of March 12, 1996 (evidence file, folios 68 to 69 and 164). 38 Cf. Communications sent between June and October 1998 by Mr. Grijalva Bueno (evidence file, folios 167 to 188). 33 34 16