The June 14, 1956, Official Bulletin with the three decrees appears as page 82 of the file. 10.362 and 10.363, which establish and stipulate regulations for martial law, are dated June 9, without any mention of the time, and support Fernández Suárez’s version of the events. But 10.364, dated June 10, says that considering “their involvement in the military uprising that occurred one day prior . . . the following individuals are sentenced to death by execution: (RET) Colonel Alcibíades Eduardo Cortínez, (RET) Colonel Ricardo Salomón Ibazeta . . .” and goes on to list five more men from the military. Of course neither Livraga’s name, nor those of the other executed men, appear among them.
As a result, the court rules on January 28:
To add issue number 18.171 of the Official Bulletin, published June 14, to the investigation and, based on this document, to conclude that the National Executive Power ordering the execution of Juan Carlos Livraga does not fit the facts, as the Chief of Police asserts in his note dated the 22nd; to inform the aforementioned civil servant of said circumstance, and to request, in the event that such a decree does exist, that he report its exact number . . .
. . . To resend the official letters cited on page 74 and to let it be known that the original text of the decrees is not of interest but rather, as a supremely urgent matter, the date and exact time of their enactment and announcement.
From Judge Hueyo to Fernández Suárez, page 83:
I have the pleasure of writing to you, Dear Sir, regarding the report offered by Juan Carlos Livraga. I am hereby making it known to you that your note dated the 22nd of this month states “that Juan Carlos Livraga was condemned to the death penalty by the National Executive Power’s decree number 10.364 dated June 9, 1956,” and informing the undersigned that in the aforementioned decree-law, published in Official Bulletin Number 18.171 on the 14th of last June, the name of the declarant, Livraga, does not appear; I have addressed this letter to you, Dear Sir, to inform you of the erroneous information, and request that, in the event that such a decree does exist, you report its exact number.
Fernández Suárez does not respond. But on January 30 he sends a copy of the note that he has just presented to the Minister of the Army, General Ossorio Arana, with the purpose, he says, of having “the military justice system hear the case that is being tried, which falls exclusively under its jurisdiction.” The note to Ossorio Arana reviews the background for the case (without mentioning decree number 10.364) and requests:
a) that the military justice system hear the case that is being tried; b) that the relevant issue of the judge’s withdrawal for lack of jurisdictional competence (Art. 150, paragraph 1 of the Military Justice Code) therefore be brought forward.
That same day, the military judge, Colonel Abraham González, took up the case as follows:
I have the pleasure of writing to Your Honor regarding the higher-order investigation that I am conducting concerning alleged infractions of the application of martial law as it was ordered by higher decree numbers 10.362 and 10.363. I request that you kindly report to this military court of justice number 27 . . . on whether a case is being tried before your court . . . that was initiated based on a report or complaint lodged by Mister Juan Carlos Livraga, which is tied to the same event that the undersigned is investigating. If affirmative, since the event in question falls within military jurisdiction either by ratione materiae or likewise by ratione personae (based on the assumption that it deals with whether military personnel acted in compliance with what Article 2 of the aforementioned higher decree number 10.363 stipulates), and considering that such a case calls for the strict application of Article 108, paragraph 1, of the Military Justice Code . . . I hereby leave Your Honor with the motion to contest jurisdiction, which is delineated in articles 150 (paragraph 1) and 151 of the aforementioned legal code.
Consequently, I ask that Your Honor desist from continuing to hear the referenced case and submit the matter at hand to this military court of justice, or, should the motion that has been made not be accepted, that the decisions be left to the National Supreme Court such that the matter in question be resolved conclusively.