11 have been detrimentally affected, a scandal and a bad example have been caused both in the 18 Military Fort and in the civilian population. 42. Accordingly it was ordered that in keeping with the Rules of Procedure for Summary Information Proceedings, the record should be forwarded for its consideration to the General Command of the Army so that the Councils of Subaltern Officers and of Troops could proceed to characterize the acts of “misconduct” established, and to impose the sanction established at Article 117 of the Rules of Military Discipline, in keeping with Articles 87(i) and 76(j) of the Law on Armed Forces Personnel, namely that Lt. Homero Flor be placed on leave prior to being discharged, and that the other soldier be discharged.19 b. Resolutions of the Council of Subaltern Officers of May 7, 2001 and of the Council of Superior Officers of the Army of July 18, 2001 43. In a session held May 3, 2001, the Council of Subaltern Officers of the Army agreed to accept the request by the Court of Law of the Fourth Military Zone, and ordered that Homero Flor be placed on leave prior to his discharge from active service in the Army, in keeping with Article 76(j) of the Law on Armed Forces Personnel.20 Homero Flor was notified of the decision on May 7, 2001.21 44. On May 8, 2001, Homero Flor presented a request to the Commander of the Army to have declared the “nullity of the entire procedure before the Council of Officers [and] instead … the reconsideration and reversal of [its] decisions.”22 In his request he noted that after receiving notice on May 7, 2001, his defense counsel addressed the Ministry of National Defense to review the record of the summary information proceeding and verified that his brief of January 25, 2001, filed with that authority, by which he had requested that investigative steps be taken to clarify the facts that were investigated in that procedure, was not there.23 He argued that accordingly, he had not been able to exercise his right to defense before the Council of Subaltern Officers.24 He also asked that an investigation be initiated into the irregularity alleged, and that his defense counsel be heard personally.25 There is no information in the record before the IACHR that would allow it to determine whether the brief said to have been filed on January 25, 2001, was actually included in the domestic 18 Annex 2. Resolution of the Court of Law of the Fourth Military Zone of January 17, 2001. Annex to the initial petition, August 20, 2002. 19 Annex 2. Resolution of the Court of Law of the Fourth Military Zone, January 17, 2001. Annex to the initial petition of August 20, 2002. 20 Annex 5. Memorandum No. 2001-06-COSB of the Council of Subaltern Officers of the Army, May 7, 2001. Annex to the initial petition of August 20, 2002. 21 Annex 5. Memorandum No. 2001-06-COSB of the Council of Subaltern Officers of the Army, May 7, 2001. Annex to the initial petition of August 20, 2002. 22 Annex 6. Request for reconsideration filed by Homero Flor with the Commander of the Army, May 8, 2001. Annex to the initial petition of August 20, 2002. 23 Annex 6. Request for reconsideration filed by Homero Flor with the Commander of the Army, May 8, 2001. Annex to the initial petition of August 20, 2002. 24 Annex 6. Request for reconsideration filed by Homero Flor with the Commander of the Army, May 8, 2001. Annex to the initial petition of August 20, 2002. 25 Annex 6. Request for reconsideration filed by Homero Flor with the Commander of the Army, May 8, 2001. Annex to the initial petition of August 20, 2002.