negligence,” and sentenced him to 16 months in prison, by judgment of November 29, 1996. That resolution was later annulled by the Supreme Court of Military Justice itself. In the new judgment handed down by the Consejo Superior de Guerra Permanente of the Sixth Judicial Zone of the Army, on December 15, 1997, he was found guilty of the offense of disobedience, offense against the duty and dignity of the office, falsity, negligence, and abuse of authority. It was on this judgment that the Supreme Council of Military Justice later ruled, on June 30, 1998, convicting him of the offense of disobedience with a maximum sentence of 28 months in prison, of which he was given notice, upon his request, on January 18, 1999. 14. She stated in this regard that the offense of disobedience provided for in Article 158 of the Code of Military Justice provides that “those who fail to carry out a service order without justified cause commit disobedience.” The petitioner argues that there was a “service order”; accordingly, the acts performed by Mr. Rosadío Villavicencio were performed strictly in keeping with it. 15. In relation to the proceedings in the regular courts, the petitioner indicates that an investigation was opened into both the victim and the other persons accused along with him of the crime of illicit narcotics trafficking, with injury to the State. She states that during the judicial investigation, the statement by Mr. Rosadío Villavicencio on the so-called “Plan Angel” was corroborated by the other members of the military accused with him and by his superior, (Peruvian Army) Col. Emilio Murgueytio, who intervened as a witnessed. In addition, she alleges that her son invoked the objection of Nature of the Act, by which he argued the acts of which he was accused were not criminally justifiable.2 2[2] Article 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure establishes: “Against a criminal action, one may invoke the objections of nature of proceeding, nature of act.... That of nature of proceeding may be invoked when the accusation is substantiated in a manner distinct from what is proper in a criminal proceeding. The objection of nature of act may be invoked when the conduct denounced does not constitute a crime or is not criminally justiciable. The objections may be invoked at any stage of the process, and may be resolved by the judge sua sponte. If the objection of nature of proceeding is declared to be well-founded, the proceeding will be regularized in keeping with the applicable procedure. If any of the other objections are declared to be well-founded, the proceeding shall be considered to have concluded, and the case will be archived with prejudice.” The trial judge declared the objection of nature of the act unfounded, and found Mr. Jorge Rosadío Villavicencio guilty of the crime of illicit drug trafficking, by judgment of April 17, 1996, sentencing him 4

Select target paragraph3