14 requirements of established in the Constitution and in the Law on Constitutional Review were not met; (ii) the procedure being challenged was not susceptible to an amparo action; and (iii) that procedure had not concluded, as it was pending before the Council of Subaltern Officers of the Army, which was to issue a pronouncement on the ruling by the Court of Law of January 17, 2001, a decision that Homero Flor would still be able to appeal before the Council of Superior Officers of the Army and, if necessary, to the contentious-administrative jurisdiction.41 The respondents’ representative also put forth arguments related to the nature of the summary information proceeding and whether it could be used to address the facts at issue. 54. Next the Commission summarizes the pertinent parts of the position presented by the Office of the General Prosecutor of the State (Procuraduría General del Estado), the Commanding General of the Army, the Minister of National Defense, and the Presidency of the Republic, regarding the justification for bringing the summary information proceeding against Lt. Homero Flor. In a subsequent section the Commission will refer to the arguments invoked regarding the nature of that proceeding. 55. In briefs directed to the Sixth Court for Civil Matters of Pichincha, the representative of the Office of the Chief Defense Counsel of the State argued that the summary information proceeding brought against Homero Flor was not aimed at punishing him for a crime that had already been struck from the books, the crime of “homosexualism,” but rather that the sanction was applicable since said sexual conduct was said to have taken place within the military facility, thereby affecting order and good customs within the Institution.42 The Legal Representative of the Presidency of the Republic argued that Article 76(i) of the Law on Armed Forces Personnel provided that one of the grounds for placing one of its members on leave was misconduct, and that in the case of Mr. Flor it was applicable due to having engaged in “immoral and scandalous conduct” that represented an attack on morality and good customs.43 The Minister of National Defense stated that he stuck to the arguments put forth by the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, the Commanding General of the Army, and the Office of the Chief Defense Counsel of the State.44 56. For his part, the Office of the Legal Adviser of the General Command of the Army indicated that the misconduct by Mr. Flor consisted of having been seen having oral sex with a soldier after having attended a social gathering, not accompanied by his wife, and in general having interacted showing “excessive informality with the subaltern personnel” (“excesiva confianza con el personal 41 In particular, the Legal Representative of the Presidency of the Republic also alleged that the situation of leave in which Homero Flor found himself at that moment, according to Article 86 of the Law on Armed Forces Personnel, “[did] not deprive him of rank or salary, [but that it] put him in a transitory situation until the matter [was] resolved.” See in Annex 13. Brief filed with the Sixth Court for Civil Matters of Pichincha within constitutional amparo action No. 74-2001 by the Legal Representative of the Presidency of the Republic, February 6, 2001. Annex to the initial petition of August 20, 2002. 42 See in Annex 13. Brief filed with the Sixth Court for Civil Matters of Pichincha in constitutional amparo action No. 74-2001, by the Director of Legal Representation, delegate of the Chief Defense Counsel of the State, February 6, 2001, and of the Legal Representative of the Presidency of the Republic), February 6, 2001. Annexes to the initial petition of August 30, 2002. 43 See in Annex 13. Brief filed with the Sixth Court for Civil Matters of Pichincha in constitutional amparo action No. 74-2001, by the Legal Representative of the Presidency of the Republic, February 6, 2001). Annex to the initial petition of August 20, 2002. 44 See in Annex 13. Brief filed with the Sixth Court for Civil Matters of Pichincha in constitutional amparo action No. 74-2001, from the Minister of National Defense, February 8, 2001. Annex to the initial petition of August 20, 2002.