21 he was declared apt without physical or psychological limitations; 3) the Medical Report prepared by Mr. Zapana indicated that there were remnants of an old hemorrhage, which appeared as a cyst in the X-rays presented by the defendant in his submissions of evidence, and in the affirmation of Dr. Carlos Paz it was stated that the loss of vision in the right eye was produced by a contusion in the area of the ocular region of the right eye resulting from a blunt force; and 4) the testimony of solder Edson Wilfredo Huayra, who was at Mr. Quispealaya’s side during the incident, and who told “lucidly the details about the way in which the defendant beat soldier Quispealaya Vilcapoma Valdemir.”70 80. On August 19, 2004, the Permanent War Council of the Second Judicial Zone of the Army issued a judgment acquitting soldier Juan Hilaquita Quispe for the crime of abuse of authority to the detriment of soldier Valdemir Quispealaya Vilcapoma, considering that it was not proven.71 This judgment was appealed by the War Council Prosecutor and by the Public Prosecutor of the Ministry of Defense.72 81. On November 30, 2004, Mr. Valdemir Quispealaya Vilcapoma presented a jurisdictional challenge in which he requested that the military courts be relieved of jurisdiction in favor of the 5 th Criminal Court of Huancayo,73 which was resolved in May 12, 2005 by the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in favor of the private military jurisdiction.74 82. On January 19, 2005, the Prosecutor of the Military Council issued an opinion in relation to the appeal of the judgment of August 19, 2004, indicating that the judgment should be confirmed in all aspects and that it should furthermore declare inadmissible the payment of civil reparations.75 83. On November 17, 2005, the Supreme Council of Military Justice overturned the judgment issued at first instance of August 19, 2004, for not having taken evidence into account, and it sent the proceedings to the Zone of Origin for a new pronouncement, in order that the evidence that had not been considered be examined in a new hearing. 76 In its resolution, the Supreme Council of Military Justice considered that a study of the file revealed that certain evidence demonstrated the responsibility of noncommissioned officer Hilaquita Quispe for the crime of abuse of authority, such as: the affidavit of Technician Valeriano Calderon before the civil courts when he indicated that by taking care of the victim during the shooting practice and placing a patch over his right eye so that he could continue shooting he noticed that the latter had a “bump” on his forehead; nor had it been considered 70 Annex 37. Prosecutorial Indictment No. 004 of May 17, 2004, addressed to Mr. CRL President of the CGP of the 2nd ZJE. Annex to the State’s communication June 3, 2013. 71 Annex 21. Judgment No. 008-2004 of August 19, 2004, Permanent War Council, 2nd Judicial Zone of the Army. Annex to the State’s communication January 27, 2005. 72 Annex 22. Notice No. 813-S-CSJM/AG.2 of the Supreme Council of Military Justice, General Secretariat, August 11, 2005 signed by Luis O. Ramírez Arcaya. Annex to the State’s communication of November 4, 2005. 73 Annex 23. “Vista” No. 1511, Case No. 12000-2002-0007, Order of the Alternate General Public Prosecutor of the SCMJ, Demetrio Rojas Talla, October 12, 2005. Annex to the State’s communication of July 26, 2006. 74 Annex 25. Supreme Council of Military Justice – 2nd Judicial Area of the Army. Supreme Order of November 17, 2005. Annex to the State’s communication of July 26, 2006. 75 Annex 24. “Vista” No. 152, Case No. 12000-2002-2007, Opinion No. 2004-1293-00073 Appeal, signed January 19, 2005. Annex to the State’s communication of July 26, 2006. 76 Annex 25. Supreme Council of Military Justice – 2nd Judicial Area of the Army. Supreme Order of November 17, 2005. Annex to the State’s communication of July 26, 2006.