13,000.00 (thirteen thousand United States dollars).36 On September 1, 1994, Lt. Rosadio Villavicencio informed Colonel M of the flight of August 31, 1994. According to the State, at that time the alleged victim hid the other flights dated August 17 and 24.37 43. It is an undisputed fact that, as previously indicated, Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio was detained on September 5, 1994, and subjected to investigations: (i) by the Inspectorate of the Leoncio Prado Detachment; (ii) in military disciplinary proceedings; (iii) in the criminal military jurisdiction, and iv) in the ordinary criminal jurisdiction. 44. The Court does not have the files for each of these proceedings, only the procedural documents provided by the parties, to which the description of such proceedings will be limited. B. Investigation by the Inspectorate of the Leoncio Prado Detachment 45. It is an undisputed fact that in September 1994, the Inspectorate of the Leoncio Prado Detachment opened an investigation against the alleged victim and other members of the military personnel of the Sión Base to determine whether they committed irregularities in the exercise of their functions as part of the assigned operation. 46. On September 5, 1994, the same day on which he was detained (supra para. 43), the alleged victim gave his first statement before the Investigation Officer38 and on September 12, 1994, he presented an addendum to the statement.39 47. On September 23, 1994, the Inspectorate of the Leoncio Prado Detachment issued its investigation report, which concluded that Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio had acted “maliciously” by hiding information on the illicit drug-trafficking flights and that he “committed perjury by trying to surprise in his statements, since he recounted the facts in an incomplete manner.”40 Furthermore, the Inspectorate indicated that it denounced Lt. Rosadio Villavicencio before the Permanent War Council of the Fifth Judicial Military Region, that is, before the military criminal jurisdiction, and recommended that he be subjected to the Investigative Council for Junior Officers as a disciplinary measure to determine his status in the Army as a result of the alleged perpetration of crimes included in the Criminal Code41 and in the Code of Military Justice42 due to lack of professionalism, honor, ethics and moral capacity, by causing an anti-drug trafficking operation to fail; colluding with drug traffickers with the only goal of obtaining economic benefits, putting at risk the reputation of the Army of Peru; demonstrating an absolute lack of military capacity and ability as a commander, since he allowed the personnel under him to disregard their functions, relate with drug traffickers, steal and sell war material to drug-trafficking hired gunmen, thus threatening the discipline and image of the Army of Peru.43 Cf. Statement of Jorge Enrique Rosadio Villavicencio before the Examining Judge, September 15, 1994 (evidence file, folio 26). 37 Cf. Statement of Colonel M before the Examining Judge, September 22, 1994 (evidence file, folios 35 and 36). 38 Cf. Statement of Lt. Jorge Enrique Rosadio Villavicencio before the Investigation Officer, September 5, 1994 (evidence file, folios 3940-3948). 39 Cf. Addendum to the statement of Lt. Jorge Enrique Rosadio Villavicencio before the Investigation Officer, September 12, 1994 (evidence file, folios 3949-3951). 40 Cf. Report of the Inspectorate of the Leoncio Prado Detachment, December 16, 1994 (evidence file, folios 4253). 41 Illicit drug trafficking, Article 296. 42 Offense against the duty and dignity of the service (Article 200, accepting money and gifts while having knowledge that it was in violation of his obligations); falsehood (Article 299, knowingly provide false information about service matters); negligence (Article 238, failing to comply with the duties corresponding to his grade and position); offense against the administration of justice (Article 302, subsection 4, failing to inform his commander of the crime committed); abuse of authority (Article 180, subsection 8(a), demanding from junior officers, for his personal benefit, obligations foreign to the military services), and failure to obey a lawful order (Article 158, due to non-compliance with the orders to fulfill a mission). 43 Cf. Report of the Inspectorate of the Leoncio Prado Detachment, December 16, 1994 (evidence file, folios 4253). 36 13