20 concluded that military justice is competent to judge a retired captain as he has a military rank. The expert stated that according to Article 326 of the Code of Military Justice, the military jurisdiction is also competent ratione loci. Furthermore, he declared that the crime of fraud is contemplated and sanctioned in the Code of Military Justice, specifically in Article 279. With regard to the measures to challenge jurisdiction and render it invalid, the expert declared that a military judge may cease to hear a proceeding against a member of the armed forces through a jurisdictional dispute, elevating the matter to the Supreme Court of Justice (which has the last word in this regard) and requesting the Supreme Court to decide whether the case should be heard by ordinary or military justice. There are two procedures to invalidate jurisdiction: disputing jurisdiction and a plea as to the jurisdiction of the court. The defendant himself may request that jurisdiction should be invalidated by filing a jurisdictional dispute or by presenting exceptions against the criminal action, within the judicial proceeding; there are four exceptions: a plea as to the jurisdiction of the court, prescription, res judicata and amnesty. The plea as to the jurisdiction of the court is only in order during pre-trial proceedings. According to the expert, a plea as to the jurisdiction of the court is not a very long procedure. If the judge considers it necessary, he opens it to evidence for a period of three days, and once this has expired, he elevates the file to the Council with the corresponding report; hence, this is a prompt and simple recourse. The Council takes a decision in the normal period that any tribunal has to take a decision, which may be from 8 to 15 days at most. As regards the Cesti Hurtado case, he stated that when Gustavo Cesti Hurtado realized that he was being submitted to a proceeding with an order of appearance, he could have challenged the jurisdiction through a plea as to the jurisdiction of the court or he could have filed a jurisdictional dispute. On receiving the notification, he could have gone before the competent judge, filing a jurisdictional dispute and requesting that the proceeding against him should be transferred to the ordinary jurisdiction. According to the expert, there is a prompt and simple recourse to obtain freedom, even when there is an order for pre-trial detention. This is the request for release on bail and it is filed when pre-trial detention has been ordered. However, according to Article 536, “in no case, is release on bail in order in crimes against the public domain, such as this specific case, which involves civil responsibility, while… the defendant shall not have reintegrated the amount defrauded or furnished sufficient bail”. From the foregoing, it is evident that, having been accused of the crime of fraud, Gustavo Cesti Hurtado had to present sufficient bail or reintegrate the amount defrauded in order to obtain release on bail. The expert mentioned that the military tribunals apply international conventions, such as the Geneva Conventions and the Human Rights Conventions.