Criminal Procedure,73 ordered that the statement of both defendants be received.74 On October 19, 1998, the alleged victim made a statement in which he reiterated that his “legitimate right to defense” was not ensured on several occasions and that “[…they were] not provided with the presence of key witnesses.”75 77. Once the statements were received, on October 26, 1998, the military judge of the First Naval Zone opened the case for a ten-day evidentiary hearing.76 78. On April 28, 1999, the Military Advocate General issued an opinion in which he stated: […] Consequently, having proven the existence of the offense defined and punished under Article 146, paragraphs 4 and 8 of the Military Criminal Code, from the evidence requested in court by the Zone Prosecutor, the guilt of the defendants is demonstrated […] in accordance with Arts. 84 of the Code of Military Criminal Procedure and 326 of the (ordinary) Code of Criminal Procedure, the Zone Commander must issue a conviction against the aforementioned defendants […].77 79. On March 13, 2000, the Zone Commander- Military Judge of the First Naval Zone handed down a conviction against Mr. Grijalva Bueno and the other defendant, based on the evidence gathered, particularly on the administrative reports containing references to cash receipts, the defendants’ own testimonies and the testimonies of the injured parties and members of the Navy, related to crimes such as the extortion of merchants and the granting of transport permits for fraudulent purposes. The ruling stated: […] a) That the CPCB-IM VICENTE ANIBAL GRIJALBA BUENO, whose status and position are on file, is the author of the crime defined and punished under Art 146, paragraphs 4 and 8, of the Military Criminal Code, for which a penalty of TWO HUNDRED DAYS OF CORRECTIONAL PRISON is imposed, which he will serve in the San Eduardo Naval Prison of the Naval Infantry Corps in this city of Guayaquil […]78. 80. On March 15, 2000, the defendants filed an appeal against the first instance judgment,79 pursuant to Article 167 of the Code of Military Criminal Procedure, on the grounds that the judgment violated the constitutional and legal norms prevailing in the country. As a result, the case was referred to the Court of Military Justice. 81. On March 13, 2001, the Court of Military Justice rejected the appeal filed and upheld the ruling issued by the judge of the First Naval Zone, confirming the guilt of Ecuador’s Military Criminal Law in force at the time of the facts used the term “confession” to refer to the statement of the accused. In this regard, Article 73 of the Military Code of Criminal Procedure states: “The confession of the accused shall be rendered without oath, and shall contain: 1. The name and surname of the confessant and, 2. His religion, age, place of birth and domicile, his status, rank, corps and the post to which he belongs. The Zone Commander shall interrogate him on the facts and the reasons for his presence in court; he shall ask the pertinent questions and counterclaims and shall require him to answer them, even referring to evidence that contradicts his statements in the case, or reading him the evidence that he deems pertinent.” Cf. Military Code of Criminal Procedure in force at the time of the facts (evidence file, folio 4934). 74 Cf. Military Criminal Court of the First Naval Zone, order of September 10, 1998 (evidence file, folio 122). 75 Cf. Judge of the First Naval Zone, unsworn confession of Mr. Grijalva Bueno of October 19, 1998 (evidence file, folios 124 to 132). 76 Cf. Military Court of the First Naval Zone, order of October 26, 1998 (evidence file 4495 to 4496). 77 Cf. Military Court of the First Naval Zone, prosecutor’s opinion of April 28, 1999 (evidence file, folios 148 to 151, folios 4507 to 4519). 78 Cf. Military Court of the First Naval Zone, judgment of March 13, 2000 (evidence file, folios 148 to 151). 79 Cf. Military Court of the First Naval Zone, appeal filed by Mr. Grijalva Bueno and another on March 15, 2000 (evidence file, folio 4527). 73 21