new judges of the NPCJ, including General Byron Pinto Muñoz (hereinafter “Mr. Pinto Muñoz”) because “the judges of the [NPCJ] and the police prosecutor ha[d] completed the term for which they had been appointed.”52 49. On May 2, 2003, the first session of the NPCJ was held with its new composition. Mr. Pinto Muñoz informed the NPCJ plenary session that he should occupy the presidency owing to his rank and seniority. Consequently, based on article 70 of the Organic Law of the National Police,53 the full Court agreed that Mr. Pinto Muñoz should occupy the presidency and, from then on, he presided the session.54 50. On May 26, 2003, the president of the NPCJ indicated that “[…], therefore, based on the rules of sound discretion, [he] consider[ed] that there [were] sufficient indications of responsibility concerning the existence of the offense, as well as the causal nexus between the offense and those responsible, based on the content of the PARTIAL REPORT ON INDICATIONS OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FROM THE SPECIAL REVIEW OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS OF THE NATIONAL POLICE GENERAL COMMAND WITH COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS […] AUDIT DIRECTORATE 1. REPORT NO. 32–DA.1-2001-466,55 [and] partially admit[ted] the prosecutor’s final report.” In addition, he ordered the detención en firme of eight officers, including the presumed victims, and, to this end, required that a constitutional order of imprisonment be issued.56 He also ordered that this precautionary measure be served in the Equitation and Remount Unit of the National Police, pursuant to article 112 of the Law on National Police Personnel.57 51. On June 13, 2003, the defense counsel of Messrs. Villarroel Merino, Cevallos Moreno, Coloma Gaibor, Vinueza Pánchez, López Ortiz and Ascázubi Albán filed an appeal for declaration of nullity and an appeal against the order of May 26, 2003, based on: (i) the fact that they were “prosecuted on the basis of a legal provisions that was neither coercive nor punitive, because the reasoned order states that the offense is defined and sanctioned by paragraphs 1, 3, 4, and 10 of art. 222 of the Police Code of Criminal Procedure which allude to the substantive formalities of the appeal for declaration of nullity and in no way refer […] to misappropriation of funds, fraud and other abuses of the administration of the Institution”;58 (ii) “lack of competence of the judge,” because Mr. Pinto he shall remain in office for two years and may be re-elected.” Organic Law of the National Police, published in Official Record No. 368, of July 24, 1998, supra. 52 Cf. Executive Decree No. 357 of April 29, 2003 (evidence file, fs. 2275 to 2278). Article 70: “The President of the National Police Court of Justice shall be the most senior and highest-ranking officer; in case of absence or impediment, he shall be substituted by the second most senior officer.” Organic Law of the National Police, supra. 53 Cf. Indictment of the National Court of Justice of March 8, 2006, in case 91-2003 (evidence file, fs. 3726 to 3744) and Guilty verdict of January 10, 2005, adopted por the National Police Court of Justice and signed by its president, General Byron Pinto Muñoz (evidence file, fs. 2566 to 2600). 54 In its answering brief, the State argued that, according to the case law of the Supreme Court of Justice, in force at the time of the facts of this case, the report issued by the Comptroller General’s Office “[…] even if indications of responsibility have been declared […], does not constitute indisputable evidence of the existence of the offense because this must be established with direct arguments,” according to a Cassation Judgment of April 22, 2008, of the Supreme Court of Justice, Third Criminal Chamber, published in the Supplement to Official Record 132 of February 19, 2010. 55 Cf. Reasoned order of the president of the National Police Court of Justice of May 26, 2003 (evidence file, fs. 2379 to 2396). 56 Article 112: “Arrest warrants and the order of pre-trial detention issued by the competent judge against members of the National Police on active duty shall be served in the Units of the respective jurisdiction of the judge or court that issues these until the corresponding judgment is delivered […].” Law on National Police Personnel, published in the Supplement to Official Record 378 of August 7, 1998, (evidence file, fs. 4365 to 4386). 57 Cf. Appeal for declaration of nullity and Appeal filed on June 13, 2003, against the reasoned order of May 26, 2003 (evidence file, fs. 2607 to 2611). 58 15