83. The Office of the Military Prosecutor brought a new charge, which in general terms leveled the same counts as in February 2000. The parents of Johan Alexis Ortiz also filed a private criminal complaint.85 84. On February 23, 2001, a new preliminary hearing was held before the Acting Judge of the Standing Military Trial Court of Guasdualito. During this hearing, one of the defendants, General Malpica Calzadilla, admitted to the facts of the indictment brought by the Office of the Military Prosecutor.86 On that same date, the Acting Temporary Military Judge partially allowed the case to go forward only with regard to the crime of disobeying military orders. With regard to the private criminal complaint, the decision established that there was no “compelling evidence at this intermediate phase to make it possible to believe that the occurrence of the facts was caused in the way that the private complainants contend.”87 85. On March 6, 2001, the petitioners filed an appeal against this decision.88 They alleged due process violations on the grounds of the provisions of the new Constitution and Criminal Code, specifically, the violation of the guarantee of a natural judge and they reiterated that the matter should be heard in the civilian courts.89The Third Office of the Military Prosecutor also filed an appeal, mainly on the grounds of failure to provide a factual basis for the decision of the Acting Military Court, and the lack of definition regarding the facts and the evidence that would be the subject of the trial proceedings on the charge of disobeying military orders. The Office of the Prosecutor filed a motion once again for the case to be transferred to the Standing Military Trial Court of San Cristóbal.90 86. On August 22, 2001, the Court Martial, acting as appeals court, overturned the decision under question and, consequently, ordered a new preliminary hearing to be held. Additionally, it dismissed the motion of the private complainant for the case to be heard in the civilian courts (under Article 123 of the Organic Criminal Procedural Code91) and ordered the case file to be transferred to the Standing Military Trial [… continuation] Annex 63. Decision of the Chamber of Criminal Cassation of the Supreme Court of Justice of December 13, 2000. Annex M to petitioners’ submission received on February 25, 2002. 85Private complaint for the crime of aggravated intentional homicide against National Guard Captain Eddin Ruben Villasmil Antunez; the crime of covering up criminal offenses against NG Captain Gerardo Enrique Méndez Figueroa, General Antonio Elías Linarez Villalobos, General Gean Carlos Rafael Malpica Calzadilla and Distinguished National Guardsman Gerson Secundino Jiménez Hernández and for fabrication of a crime, brought against Captain Méndez Figueroa and General Jean Carlos Malpica Calzadilla. According to Annex 64. Order of the Standing Military Trial Court of Guasdualito of February 23, 2001 and the record of the preliminary hearing of the same date. Annex A to petitioners’ submission received on February 25, 2002. 2002. 86Annex 65. Record of preliminary hearing of February 23, 2001. Annex A to petitioners’ submission received on February 25, 87Annex 64. Order of the Standing Military Trial Court of Guasdualito of February 23, 2001. Annex A to petitioners’ submission received on February 25, 2002. 88In the communication submitted to the Acting Military Trial Court Judge of Control of Guasdualito, they also requested “a certified copy of the entire case file, whereby the instant case was opened before [said] court inclusive, from the time the […] case Military Prosecutor filed the charges against the defendants on record.” Annex 35. Motion to appeal filed by Edgar Ortiz and Zaida Hernández, dated March 6, 2001 before the Court Martial. Annex J to petitioners’ submission received on February 25, 2002. 89Annex 35. Motion to appeal filed by Edgar Ortiz and Zaida Hernández, dated March 6, 2001 before the Court Martial. Annex J to petitioners’ submission received on February 25, 2002. 90As is noted in Annex 49. Decision of the Court Martial of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela of August 22, 2001. Annex K to petitioners’ submission received on February 25, 2002. 91As the decision cites, said article establishes that military jurisdiction encompasses “3. Common crimes committed by members of the military in units, barracks, garrisons, education institutes, military facilities or at institutions of decentralized entities of the Armed Forces, on military duty, in acts of service, on commission on the occasion thereof.” Also, Article 15 of the same Code provides that: “separate trial proceedings shall not be held for a single offense even though there are several defendants, nor shall several trial proceedings be held at the same time against a person for several crimes he may have committed…” Annex 49. Decision of the Court Martial of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela of August 22, 2001. Annex K to petitioners’ submission received February 25, 2002.