committing irregularities in Puerto Bolívar, such as ordering the protection of the shrimp boat of Admiral TL, where he allegedly saw him “counting a roll of dollar bills.” It was reported that other sailors made similar allegations.27 49. According to a statement by the Head of the Operational Audit Department of the General Inspectorate of the Navy, made before the military criminal judge of the First Naval Zone, his boss – the Inspector General – ordered him to establish an investigative commission to verify the facts described in a report presented by SERINT in Puerto Bolívar. He added that the commission went to Puerto Bolívar and was instructed not to announce its visit to the Captain. He also stated that the work was coordinated with a SERINT agent under the command of FM, who was the head of SERINT. He indicated that they spoke with the people who were aware of the reported irregularities, who confirmed the facts.28 50. On October 19, 1992, the Inspector General forwarded the report of the Administrative Affairs Commission which “examined and analyzed the administrative failures” of Mr. Grijalva Bueno in his performance as Port Captain, concluding that he and other seamen participated in: illegal charges for paperwork; giving consent for sex workers to board ships; seafood theft; fuel or engine trafficking; and smuggling of luxury vehicles in Puerto Bolívar. In view of this, as indicated in Official Communication No. COGMAR-JER-484-O of August 27, 2007, the General Council of the Navy stated that the report concluded that Mr. Grijalva Bueno committed crimes, and therefore recommended that the Court of the First Naval Zone initiate legal action.29 51. On October 27, 1992, the Council of Senior Navy Officers issued a resolution ordering that Mr. Grijalva Bueno be “placed on paid leave for the good of the service,” pursuant to Article 76 (i) of the Law on Armed Forces Personnel. The resolution accepted the recommendations of the investigative commission which confirmed Mr. Grijalva’s guilt.30 The decision was ratified on September 2, 1993, by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces.31 52. On November 17, 1992, the President of the Republic issued Decree No. 264, ordering that Mr. Grijalva Bueno be “officially placed on leave.” On May 18, 1993, the alleged victim was permanently discharged from the armed forces through Executive Decree No. 772.32 C. Appeal before the Court of Constitutional Guarantees 53. In response to this situation, on September 8, 1994, Mr. Grijalva and other persons filed an appeal of unconstitutionality before the Court of Constitutional Cf. Ecuadorian Navy, Naval Intelligence Service, “Extension to the Report of the Investigative Commission,” Confidential, of October 2, 1992 (evidence file, folios 24 to 28). 28 Cf. Military Criminal Court of the First Naval Zone, statement of JL before the military criminal judge, Criminal Case 06-94, of November 27, 1995 (evidence file, folios 30 to 43). 29 Cf. Naval Force, Official letter No. COGMAR-JER-484-O, supra. 30 Cf. Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, “Extension of the Report of the Commission”, undated (evidence file, folios 71 to 74) and Ecuadorian Navy, Council of Senior Officers, Official letter No. COSUPE– SEC–007-R, of October 27, 1992 (evidence file, folio 616). It should be noted that Article 74 of the Armed Forces Personnel Law of Ecuador states: “Being placed on paid leave (disponibilidad) is the transitory situation in which a member of the military is placed, without a command and without any active position, but without excluding him from the ranks of the Permanent Armed Forces, until his discharge is published.” See: https://www.defensa.gob.ec/wpcontent/uploads/downloads/2017/08/LEY_PERSONAL_FUERZAS_ARMADAS. pdf 31 Cf. Court of Constitutional Guarantees. Decision No. 181-95–CP, of September 12, 1995 (evidence file, folios 68 to 69). 32 Cf. Court of Constitutional Guarantees. Decision No. 181-95–CP, supra. 27 15