Central University of Ecuador. An injunction against transfer or disposal of the property of the defendants […]”76. 93. On November 18, 1997, the Fourth Chamber for Criminal Matters of the Superior Court of Justice ruled on the appeal filed by Eusebio Domingo Revelles and another defendant against the order instituting trial proceedings. With regard to Eusebio Domingo Revelles, it stated that: In giving his initial statement before a judge […]he attempted to circumvent his involvement in and responsibility for the criminal offense that is the subject of the instant trial, by claiming facts and circumstances that totally contradict his pre-indictment statement given in the presence of and with the personal participation of the Representative of the Office of the Public Prosecutor, who endorses the veracity of its content and the probative value thereof which, corroborated by the investigation report, [is] the grounds for the instant criminal action, constitutes a serious presumption of guilt, as provided for in Article 116 of the Special Law on the Subject Matter. Based on the foregoing, in keeping with Article 347 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, inasmuch as the defendant is the only one who has appealed the order to institution trial proceedings issued by the [appellate] Judge a quo, as responsible for the offense that has been codified as a crime, that is, provided for and punished by Article 62 of the Law on Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances, in his capacity as an accomplice, under the provision set forth in Article 43 of the Criminal Code. 77 94. On April 1, 1998, the Second Court for Criminal Matters of Pichincha which heard the trial proceeding found “Eusebio Domingo Revelles […] to be the perpetrator responsible for the crime as described and punished under Article 62 of the Law on Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances, as an accomplice, pursuant with Article 43 of the Criminal Code” sentencing him to a 6 year Ordinary Minor Prison Term “with credit for the time served deprived of his liberty for this case and a fine of one hundred general minimum wages […]”78. 95. In the judgment, the Court noted that “there was no failure to observe the formal requirements of substance in any way so as to influence the decision in the case and, therefore, the proceeding is valid and is so declared.” It further stated that the material existence of the offense or corpus delicti was proven by evidence relating to the drugs that were found and, after describing the content set forth in his pre-indictment statement, the Court held that in ‘giving his initial statement before a judge (pgs. 670) [Mr. Eusebio Domingo Revelles] attempted to circumvent his involvement in and responsibility for the crime that is the subject of the instant proceedings by claiming facts and circumstances that totally contradict the content of his statement pre-indictment statement […]”. 96. The foregoing judgment, pursuant to legislation in effect at the time, is reviewed by operation of law by the Superior Court of Justice. 79 97. On June 11, 1998, the Prosecutor’s Office of Pichincha filed a motion with the Fourth Chamber of the Superior Court of Quito, submitting its final charging document and requesting “the reviewed judgment undergo an amendment, inasmuch as the punishment imposed is inconsistent with the procedural 76Annex 34. Twelfth Court for Criminal Matters of Pichincha, Order instituting trial proceedings, June 14, 1996, Pages 1519 1564. Annex to petitioner’s submission on November 13, 1998. 77Annex 35. Fourth Chamber for Criminal Matters of the Superior Court of Justice, Motion for Appeal, November 25, 1997. Annex to petitioner’s submission on November 13, 1998. 78Annex 36. Second Court for Criminal Matters of Pichincha, Judgment of April 1, 1998. Annex to petitioner’s submission on November 13, 1998. 79Annex 1. Superior Court of Justice, Fourth Chamber, Judgment of November 24, 1998. Annex to petitioner’s communication received on April 19, 1999. 24