57. On May 5, 1995, the Judge of Mixed First Instance issued his decision, in which he found that the alleged victim and other persons committed the crime of illicit drug trafficking. 58 On September 15, 1995, the Judge Specialized in Civil Law issued his final report on the investigation in the ordinary stage.59 On October 23, 1995, the legal counsel of the alleged victim filed an objection of nature of action against the criminal action opened against him.60 58. Hearings were held on January 25, March 4, 7, 11, 12, 14, 19, 20 and 21, April 12 and 17, 1996, as part of the oral proceedings against the alleged victim and other persons. 61 In the hearing of March 4, 1996, the alleged victim submitted evidence. 62 In the hearing of March 12, 1996, the alleged victim gave his statement; he was interrogated by the Superior Prosecutor and other attorneys acting as defense counsel.63 59. On April 17, 1996, the Mixed Chamber of the Superior Court of San Martín declared groundless the objection of nature of the action filed by the alleged victim and convicted him to six years of prison for the crime of illicit drug trafficking “under the classification of aiding and abetting illicit drug trafficking.” In that decision it was considered that the alleged victim, contrary to what was authorized by his supervisors: […] authorized a second and a third flight with drugs destined abroad, which Colonel [M] alias “Jano” found out about and felt betrayed by Lt. Rosadio; consequently, he was detained on September 5, 1994. It has been confirmed that a fourth flight was going to take place, in which the orders of the Command to intercept the aircraft, seize the drugs and money and apprehend the occupants were going to be implemented. However, in the report to his superiors he indicated that that was going to be the second flight. Moreover, instead of remitting the money from those flights to his commander as money seized, with the corresponding report, Lt. Rosadio Villavicencio divided it among his personnel […].64 60. In addition, the Mixed Chamber issued a ruling whereby it “ACQUITTED the other accused individuals, who were not present, of all charges […] due to lack of evidence; ORDERED the suspension of detention orders against them; […]; GRANTED the ex officio nullity of this count, since it is unfavorable for the State, and must be remitted to the Supreme Court, with a note of caution”; therefore, the proceedings were elevated to the Supreme Court. 65 61. On April 24, 1996, the Mixed Chamber complemented this ruling indicating that, regarding the objection of nature of the action filed by the accused, Jorge Enrique Rosadio Villavicencio, “the presentation of the corresponding grounds was inadvertently omitted.” To correct this omission, it added that “the objection raised only applies when the fact denounced does not constitute a crime or is not legally punishable”; therefore, “the objection […] is groundless since the legal status of the accused, namely determining his innocence or guilt, requires discussion, as has been done during the investigation and oral proceedings, but cannot be protected by means of an objection.”66 Cf. Decision of the Judge of Mixed First Instance of May 5, 1995 (evidence file, folios 230-268). Cf. Final report of the Judge Specialized in Civil Law of September 15, 1995 (evidence file, folio 270-273). 60 Cf. Objection of nature of the action, filed by the legal counsel of the alleged victim on October 23, 1995 (evidence file, folios 275 to 279). 61 Initially, when the hearing was declared open, it was mentioned that “the legal counsel of the accused includes the attorneys Tito García Alfaro, Roberto Cerpa Rodríguez and Carlos Prada Remuzgo,” as well as the “appointed defense counsel, Dr. Perla Gaube Ruíz” for the accused persons that were not present. Although when the legal counsel were mentioned they did not indicate who represented whom, it can be inferred that Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio was represented by Carlos Prada Remuzgo. However, later on they declare “groundless the objection of nature of the action [filed] by the [female attorney as per the Spanish] defense counsel of Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio,” so it is unclear who is acting as his legal counsel at the end of the hearing. Cf. Minutes of the hearings of the oral proceedings of January 25, March 4, 7, 11, 12, 14, 19, 20 and 21, as well as April 12 and 17, 1996 (evidence file, folios 281-349). 62 Cf. Minutes of the hearing of the oral proceedings of March 4, 1996 (evidence file, folios 351-352). 63 Cf. Minutes of the hearing of the oral proceedings of March 12, 1996 (evidence file, folio 9). 64 Cf. Minutes of the hearing of the oral proceedings of April 17, 1996 (evidence file, folios 281-349). 65 Cf. Minutes of the hearing of the oral proceedings of April 17, 1996 (evidence file, folios 281-349). 66 Cf. Order of April 24, 1996 (evidence file, folio 354). 58 59 16