17 been exhausted, and by then he was “definitively separated from the Army.” The appeal was admitted on August 30, 2001, and the matter went before the Constitutional Court.59 c. Decision of the Constitutional Court 65. On February 4, 2002, the Second Chamber of the Constitutional Court found the constitutional amparo action inadmissible.60 In its analysis the Court took into account the arguments raised by the parties when the motion was before the Sixth Court for Civil Matters. In that respect, it considered that the decision of the Court of Law within the summary information proceeding was based on the principle of legality established in Article 119 of the Ecuadorian Constitution, in conjunction with Article 187, on the special jurisdiction provided for “judging infractions [by members of the Armed Forces] in the performance of their professional duties.”61 Moreover, it indicated that these constitutional provisions supplemented Article 1 of the Organic Law of the Armed Forces Justice Service on the jurisdiction of military courts; and Article 60(g) of the Organic Law of the Armed Forces, on the power attributed to the Military Criminal Courts to determine “leave prior to discharge from active duty in the Army, in the interest of good service, due to misconduct.”62 66. In this way the Constitutional Court concluded that the Court of Law did not act unlawfully in issuing its decision of January 17, 2001, and that as it was this “administrative act” that was challenged, one had not shown a constitutional violation to the detriment of Homero Flor that would make it possible to rule favorably on the amparo action filed. The Court noted that “additionally the requirements noted by the Law on Constitutional Review were not [satisfied].”63 4. Nature of the summary information proceeding 67. This procedure is regulated in the Rules of Procedure for Summary Information Proceedings in the Armed Forces.64 According to the information available at the time when the summary information proceeding that involved Homero Flor was conducted, it appears that the instrument applied in the instant case was the Rules of Procedure issued by Ministerial Decree 1046, published in General Ministerial Order 240 of December 22, 1993.65 Article 2 of those Rules of Procedure indicates that: 59 Annex 22. Resolution of the Sixth Court for Civil Matters of Pichincha, August 30, 2000. Annex to the initial petition of August 20, 2002. 60 Annex 23. Decision of the Constitutional Court, Second Chamber, February 4, 2002. Published in Official Registry No. 546, April 2, 2002. Annex to the initial petition of August 30, 2002, and annex to the petitioners’ brief of March 17, 2008. 61 Annex 23. Decision of the Constitutional Court, Second Chamber, February 4, 2002. Published in Official Registry No. 546, April 2, 2002. Annex to the initial petition of August 30, 2002, and annex to the petitioners’ brief of March 17, 2008. 62 Annex 23. Decision of the Constitutional Court, Second Chamber, February 4, 2002. Published in Official Registry No. 546, April 2, 2002. Annex to the initial petition of August 30, 2002, and annex to the petitioners’ brief of March 17, 2008. 63 Annex 23. Decision of the Constitutional Court, Second Chamber, February 4, 2002. Published in Official Registry No. 546, April 2, 2002. Annex to the initial petition of August 30, 2002, and annex to the petitioners’ brief of March 17, 2008. 64 In this respect see: Annex 2. Resolution of the Court of Law of the Fourth Military Zone of January 17, 2001. Annex to the initial petition of August 20, 2002. 65 These Rules of Procedure were subsequently replaced by new Rules of Procedure for summary information proceedings approved by Decision No. 1088 of the Ministry of National Defense, and published in General Ministerial Order No. 200 of October 30, 2002.