[…] he obtained personal economic benefits from the authorization of drug-trafficking flights and the installation and operation of a lab. 111. Moreover, in the ordinary criminal jurisdiction, the Mixed Chamber of the Superior Court of San Martín, as per the order of April 17, 1996, whereby it convicted Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio for the crime of illicit drug trafficking,100 considered the following to be proven facts: […] the accused […] was given instructions by his superiors to carry out an intelligence mission in the Sión area, which consisted of infiltrating the drug trafficking circles by pretending to be a corrupt officer, to find out who the bosses were, how they operated, the number of people involved and amount of arms that they had, etc. He was to allow one flight transporting drugs and subsequently intervene, with the soldiers, junior officers and officers under this command, to seize an aircraft loaded with drugs, money and capture the people involved, as part of the “Limpieza 94” operative, for which he began working on August 5, 1994, replacing Captain Cusicanqui; […] that, in his statement before the Interim Deputy District Attorney of Tarapoto […] he stated that the first and only flight with drugs from Sión to Colombia authorized by his Command took place on [August 17, 1994] and in his position as Chief of the Sión Base, contrary to that authorized by his hierarchical superiors, he permitted a second and third flight with drugs destined abroad, and […] that Lt. Rosadio Villavicencio, instead of remitting the money from those flights to his commander as money seized along with a report, divided it among his personnel […] and kept a significant amount in US dollars, which he sent to his mother, to the Interbank account in her name. 112. As can be inferred from the considering paragraphs transcribed above, both the Mixed Chamber of the Superior Court of San Martín in the ordinary criminal jurisdiction and the Investigative Council in the disciplinary proceedings noted in their findings essentially the same behavior or facts, concluding that Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio had incurred in the crimes or misconduct that he was accused of in each of the proceedings. 113. Without detriment to the above -that is, the identity of the facts- the question in this case is whether the same facts that are penalized as a crime can be subject to sanctions in another juridical branch, in this case disciplinary law. 114. In principle, a criminal penalty does not exclude the possibility that the same facts or conduct be sanctioned by applying the laws of another juridical branch; for example, the possibility of reparation in the civil jurisdiction is clearly not excluded, given that the penalty and civil reparation have different goals and liability is determined in each branch according to its principles. The same occurs with political sanctions that remove from office a person subject to a political trial, these do not preclude a possible penalty in the criminal jurisdiction and reparation in the civil jurisdiction. 115. In the instant case it is necessary to determine whether the criminal penalty and the administrative sanction have the same goal and identical principles to determine liability. However, this question does not require much analysis, since it is common legal knowledge that a sanction in disciplinary law has the goal of preserving the internal order of an institution, meaning that it is reserved to its intraneus so as to maintain discipline among them, even excluding a person from the institution because their behavior is considered incompatible with that order. It is evident that the goal of the administrative sanction has nothing to do with the goal of criminal law, to the extent that even if the behavior of the alleged victim did not have a criminal classification, it would not have impeded the feasibility of the administrative sanction, which, because of its goal and nature different from criminal law, responds to separate liability criteria. 100 File No. 357/995 (evidence file, folio 335). 27