he was appointed Port Captain of Puerto Bolívar. In the exercise of his duties he became aware of the illegal and arbitrary detentions, torture and murders of three persons by members of the Navy and, in December 1991 (supra footnote 22) he reported these human rights violations to his immediate superior in the institution. Subsequently, by decision of the Council of Senior Officers of the Navy, he remained in his position until October 27, 1992, and was officially placed on leave on November 17, 1992. Finally, on May 18, 1993, by means of Executive Decree No. 772 he was permanently discharged from the Navy (supra paras. 51 and 52). 154. In turn, on November 29, 1993, the Commander of the First Naval Zone ordered the opening of a summary inquiry before the military criminal court of the First Naval Zone for the alleged irregularities committed by Mr. Grijalva and his crew members in the performance of his duties as Port Captain of Puerto Bolívar. In this regard, a report of the Naval Intelligence Service which has no date and is marked “confidential” was used as background. The report concludes that “based on the investigations, it is presumed that all the anomalies committed in the jurisdiction of the Captaincy of Puerto Bolívar are carried out by naval personnel with the full knowledge and participation of CPCB IM Vicente GRIJALVA” (capitalization of the original). On June 15, 1994, an order was issued to commence proceedings against Mr. Grijalva Bueno and another person. The military criminal proceedings continued and on March 13, 2000, the military criminal judge of the First Naval Zone handed down a conviction against Mr. Grijalva, which was confirmed on March 13, 2001. 155. In 1994, Mr. Grijalva Bueno publicly denounced in the media the reports he had made previously within the institution (supra footnote 23). This information contributed to the clarification of the aforementioned deaths. In addition, the Truth Commission’s report indicated that Mr. Grijalva was subjected to several acts of harassment.132 156. For the purposes of the corresponding analysis, it is necessary to examine whether the nature of the allegations of serious human rights violations made by Mr. Grijalva Bueno and the dismissal process and the military criminal proceedings to which he was subjected violated his freedom of expression. In this regard, it should be noted that the State insisted that the military criminal proceeding was in no way an act of retaliation against Mr. Grijalva. 157. From the different evidentiary elements this Court confirms that: a) coincidentally, following the complaint made by Mr. Grijalva in December 1991, regarding the human rights violations committed by members of the institution to which he belonged, an administrative process of dismissal was initiated in 1992; b) the administrative process of dismissal was initiated on the basis of confidential reports and decisions of which Mr. Grijalva had no knowledge, nor the possibility of participating and defending himself, which culminated with the decision to dismiss him without any justification; therefore, he did not have recourse to an effective remedy, as the State itself acknowledged; On December 15, 1994, the Commission granted precautionary measures in his favor and in favor of four other ex-members of the armed forces, based on information received by the Commission concerning threats made against their lives and the harassment of their families as a result of their statements about the facts and those responsible for the disappearance, torture and death of Consuelo Benavides. The Commission stated that in this case two witnesses died and another disappeared (evidence file, folios 572 to 573). 132 40