Mr. Grijalva Bueno and JS. The judgment stated that “the defense of the accused was limited to arguing matters unrelated to the trial, such as claiming that the revenge and hostility of several naval officers were intended to harm (the defendant), facts that turned out to be totally unconnected with the process.”80 It added that “the testimonies given in the trial are consistent as to form, circumstances and sequence of events, which are perfectly in line with the documentary evidence […]. In view of the accusations made, the defense of the accused does not succeed in dispelling the charges against them […].81” 82. On December 6, 2007, the judge of the First Naval Zone declared the statute of limitations on the sentence delivered and ordered the case file to be archived.82 Mr. Grijalva Bueno did not serve the prison term. VIII MERITS 83. The instant case concerns the State’s alleged responsibility for the absence of judicial guarantees in the military criminal proceedings followed against Mr. Vicente Aníbal Grijalva Bueno for “crimes against the military faith,” as well as the violation of freedom of thought and expression. 84. The State made a partial acknowledgement of responsibility in relation to the considerations expressed by the Commission in its Merits Report regarding the disciplinary procedure of dismissal of Mr. Grijalva Bueno in the terms indicated (supra Chapter V). Therefore, this Court does not consider it necessary to conduct a detailed analysis of said violations, except for those that were not acknowledged by the State. Therefore, the Court will examine the disputes over the judicial actions taken in the military criminal proceedings in relation to the alleged violations of judicial guarantees, and the alleged violation of freedom of thought and expression. VIII.1 JUDICIAL GUARANTEES83 85. In Chapter V, the Court indicated the scope of the State’s partial acknowledgment of international responsibility with respect to the violation of judicial guarantees and judicial protection by the administrative authorities during the victim’s “The offenses and responsibility of the defendants are legally and fully proven based on the decision of July 13, 1994 of Summary Inquiry N° 44- 93 of the Court of Law of the First Naval Zone (folios 2 to 5); the report of the commission verifying the information processed by the Naval Intelligence Service (folios 35 to 41); the report of the Administrative Affairs Inspection Commission of the “Case of the Captaincy of Puerto Bolívar” (folios 22 to 24); the Final Report of the Naval Intelligence Service (folios 11 to 15); the written complaint of [ER] (folios 16 and 17) regarding the documents that prove the declarants’ statements; three permits to transport fuel (folios 28, 29 and 154); cash receipt N° 0506 of June 22,1992 (folio 19) and the testimonies of [ER] (folios 919, 320, 86, and 87); [RG] (folio 84); and [VR] (folio 89) […]. In his statement, CPCB Vicente Grijalva Bueno merely denies committing the acts that are the subject of this case, although he recognizes his signature on the documents that were shown to him by the Zone Prosecutor; in short, he attributes the facts to a set-up by the Naval Intelligence Service […]. The testimonies given in the proceeding are consistent as to form, circumstances and sequence of events, which are perfectly consistent with the documentary evidence in the bodies of evidence that comprise the present criminal trial […]”. Cf. Court of Military Justice, Ruling on Appeal filed before the Military Criminal Trial No. 006-9 of March 13, 2001 (evidence file, folios 153 to 154). 81 Cf. Court of Military Justice, Ruling on Appeal in Military Criminal Trial No. 006-9 of March 13, 2001, supra. 82 Cf. Ecuadorian Navy, First Naval Zone Guayaquil, Official letter No. PRIZON-JUP-265-0, of December 6, 2007 (evidence file, folio 156). 83 Article 8 of the American Convention. 80 22