20 the subject of the investigation were committed during military service, as they occurred during shooting practice in the Military Base facilities, had been approved by the Army Command, and the defendant, noncommissioned officer Hilaquita, was employed as an instructor of the same and thus carrying out his functions.64 Criminal proceeding before the military jurisdiction 77. On August 18, 2003, the Permanent Military Judge of Huancayo declared admissible the motion for provisional release of noncommissioned officer Hilaquita, who was freed on August 26, 2003 after spending 9 months and 15 days in preventive detention.65 78. On December 23, 2003, the President of the Permanent War Council of the Second Judicial Zone of the Army presented the Final Report based on the action against soldier Hilaquita Quispe for the crime of abuse of authority against soldier Quispealaya Vilcapoma, which was issued by the Permanent Military Judge of Huancayo.66 According to this opinion, the Fifth Permanent Military Judge of Huancayo stated that he believed that the soldier Hilaquita Quispe was neither the perpetrator nor responsible for the crime of Abuse of Authority established in Article 180(2) of the Code of Military Justice, according to the justification that the direct imputation of the victim had only been corroborated by the testimony of former Corporal SM Edson Huayra Arancibia, while there were 15 other witness testimonies from military personnel that were present during the shooting practice that indicated that they did not see the defendant strike the victim. The report similarly indicated that the victim enlisted in the military service with problems with his vision, just as the testimony of the director of the Superior Institute Juan Enrique Pestalozi corroborated, where the victim had studied before enlisting in the military service.67 79. On May 17, 2004, the Superior Prosecutor of the Permanent War Council of the Second Military Zone presented an indictment against soldier Hilaquita Quispe as the perpetrator of the crime of abuse of authority68 to the detriment of Mr. Quispealaya and requested that a sentence of 18 months of prison and a fine of 3,000 soles be imposed on him as a civil reparation.69 The accusation was based, among other things: 1) on the fact that Technician Calderon, who covered Mr. Quispealaya’s eye during the second exercise, indicated that when he covered his eye, the latter had “a red eye and a bump on the center of his forehead”; 2) that when the Recruitment Office performed the customary psychosomatic examinations prior to enlisting Mr. Quispealaya in the Army, as well as the Unit where he was assigned gave him a Medical Examination for Incorporation and, according to these examinations 64 Annex 18. Criminal Chamber. Competency No. 08-2003. 5th Permanent JM of Huancayo II ZJE-5º JP of Huancayo of May 12, 2003. Annex 23 of the petitioners’ communication of February 5, 2006. 65 Annex 19. Final Report No. 005-2003/5to. JMPH-2da ZJE of December 23, 2003. Annex to the State’s communication October 18, 2004. 66 Annex 19. Final Report No. 005-2003/5to. JMPH-2da ZJE of December 23, 2003. Annex to the State’s communication October 18, 2004. 67 Annex 19. Final Report No. 005-2003/5to. JMPH-2da ZJE of December 23, 2003. Annex to the State’s communication October 18, 2004. 68 According to the indictment, the crime of abuse of authority is defined in Article 179 of the Code of Military Justice as “Exceeding the performance of one’s duties to the detriment of an inferior officer or any other person.” 69 Annex 37. Prosecutorial Indictment No. 004 of May 17, 2004, addressed to Mr. CRL President of the CGP of the 2nd ZJE. Annex to the State’s communication June 3, 2013.