Subsequently, on several occasions, Mr. Grijalva Bueno asked the judge to order a series of evidentiary, testimonial and documentary procedures.55 66. On November 27, 1995, Captain JL, who was involved in the preparation of the report of the commission of the Inspectorate for Administrative Affairs, stated: “[W]hat we wrote in the report is based on what we were told by those we interviewed [; the] report is to verify what is stated in the complaints. It is not evidence that this actually happened.”56 67. On May 14, 1996, Mr. Grijalva asked the military criminal judge to summon ER and RG, the persons who had initially reported the alleged unlawful acts attributed to him, to testify.57 The investigating judge ordered evidence to be gathered and he went to Puerto Bolívar to receive those two statements.58 68. On July 2, 1996, the military criminal judge of the First Naval Zone declared the summary inquiry closed.59 On July 5, 1996, the military criminal judge rejected Mr. Grijalva’s request to continue with the case.60 69. On July 16, 1996, the Prosecutor of the First Naval Zone, in accordance with Article 65 of the Military Code of Criminal Procedure, 61 issued his report in which he accused Mr. Grijalva Bueno and another person - the former as the perpetrator and the latter as an accomplice - in the crime of abuse of authority. Regarding Mr. Grijalva Bueno he stated the following: […] I accuse him of being the author of the offenses defined in Art. 146, paragraphs four and eight, of the Military Criminal Code, since as the oldest [member] of “the Captaincy of Puerto Bolívar” Naval Division and as an authority, he abused his powers by exceeding his legal attributions, committed abuses of authority, extorted and allowed the extortion of citizens who are obliged to appear before the Maritime Authority […].62 70. The evidence file contains a brief filed by Mr. Grijalva Bueno in which he states that he was not notified of the prosecutor’s opinion in a timely manner and that both the prosecutor and the judge ignored his request regarding the witness statements.63 However, it is on record that the prosecutor’s opinion was notified to him on July 23, 1996.64 Cf. Military Court of the First Naval Zone, brief of Mr. Grijalva Bueno of July 17, 1994 (evidence file, folios 4387 to 4388), and Military Court of the First Naval Zone, order of February 29, 1996 (evidence file, folios 4396 to 4397). 56 Cf. Military Criminal Court of the First Naval Zone, statement of JL before the military criminal judge, Criminal Case 06-94, of November 26, 1995 (evidence file, folios 30 to 43). 57 Cf. Request submitted to the military criminal judge of the First Naval Zone by Mr. Grijalva Bueno’s defense attorney, of May 14, 1996 (evidence file, folio 98). 58 Cf. Brief of Mr. Grijalva Bueno submitted to the Military Court of the First Naval Zone on July 16, 1996 (evidence file, folios 225 and 4451) and statements made by ER and RG of April 13 and October 5, 1994, in Puerto Bolívar (evidence file, folios 4870 to 4884). 59 Cf. Military Court of the First Naval Zone, order of July 2, 1996 (evidence file, folio 4408). 60 Cf. Court of law of the First Naval Zone, order of July 5, 1996 (evidence file, folio 4410). 61 Cf. Military Code of Criminal Procedure, Art. 65. “Once the summary has been received by the Superior, it shall be transferred to the prosecutor so that he may issue his opinion within the term granted. This term may be extended having regard to the importance, volume and complexity of the process”. Cf. Prosecutor’s opinion of July 16, 1996 (evidence file, folios 4413 to 4448). 62 Cf. Military Court of the First Naval Zone, prosecutor’s opinion of July 16, 1996 (evidence file, folios 4413 to 4448). 63 Cf. Request submitted to the Military Criminal Judge of the First Naval Zone by Vicente Grijalva Bueno and JS, Military Trial No. 06-94, undated (evidence file, folio 112). Said document does not have a date, but is marked “July 15, 196” in ballpoint pen, suggesting that it was filed prior to the issuance of the prosecutor’s opinion. 64 Cf. Notification of the prosecutor’s opinion of July 23, 1996 (evidence files, folio 4868). 55 19