-625. To order by all possible means the appearance of Lieutenant FABIO RINCON QUIÑONES for questioning in this investigation.112 [After listing all the evidence, the court found that there was significant evidence against the accused (with the exception of Tarquino Morales Díaz) and, therefore, ordered preventive detention measures. Among the evidence that provided grounds for the summons of Rincón Quiñones were the statement of Escobar Mejía, and the statements of Jairo Zuluaga Quicero and Nicolás Narváez. The statement of Dennis Beltrán Caravajal was also mentioned; he had said that following the events of Pueblo Bello, he had seen one of the victims with an army lieutenant.] 95(86) The defense lawyers filed a plea for habeas corpus against the decision of May 15, 1990 (supra para. 95(85)), alleging that the Fourth Public Order Court had issued a decision on the juridical status of the accused after the period during which they could be legally held. On May 16, 1990, the Second Superior Court of Montería admitted the recourse and ordered the immediate release of those detained.113 95(87) On May 30, 1990, the Fourth Public Order Court ordered the capture of Ramiro Enrique Álvarez Porras, Héctor de Jesús Narváez Alarcón, Luis Ángel Gil Zapata, Pedro Hernán Ogaza Pantoja, Elkin de Jesús Tobón Zea and Rogelio de Jesús Escobar Mejía.114 95(88) On July 10, 1990, the First Public Order Court issued a decision on the juridical status of Rogelio de Jesús Escobar Mejía, and did not grant him the benefit of conditional release.115 95(89) On October 19, 1990, the Fourth Public Order Court ruled on the joinder proposed by the First Public Order Judge between the criminal facts that he was investigating for the abduction of Manuel Alfonso Ospina Ospina, with those being investigated by the Fourth Public Order Court in relation to the events of Pueblo Bello. In that regard, it found that the motivation for the different criminal events was similar and consequently decided: FIRST: To transmit the proceedings being conducted against FIDEL CASTAÑO GIL and others, based on the violation of Decree 180 of 1988, to the First Public Order Court, owing to concurrence of offences, due to the connection examined [...].116 95(90) On December 7, 1990, the First Public Order Court granted the benefit of conditional release to Rogelio de Jesús Escobar Mejía, who “despite being detained in relation to the proceedings before the Fourth Public Order Court and [the First Public Order Court] [...] had provided effective collaboration, more than sufficient to identify completely the masterminds and the perpetrators.”117 112 Cf. decision of the Medellín Fourth Public Order Court of May 15, 1990 (file of useful evidence submitted by the State, folios 6996 to 7011). 113 Cf. decision of May 16, 1990, issued by the Second Superior Court of Montería (file of useful evidence submitted by the State, folios 6900 to 6903). 114 Cf. official communication No. 17 of January 31, 1992, issued by the 83rd Public Order Examining Magistrate (file of useful evidence submitted by the State, folio 7022). 115 Cf. official communication No. 17 of January 31, 1992 issued by the 83rd Public Order Examining Magistrate (file of useful evidence submitted by the State, folio 7020). 116 Cf. decision of October 19, 1990, issued by the Fourth Public Order Court (file of useful evidence submitted by the State, folios 5347 to 5351). 117 Cf. decision of December 17, 1990, issued by the First Public Order Court (file of useful evidence submitted by the State, folios 5352 to 5360).