E/CN.4/1992/52 page 25 The jury court's decision is based on questions put to it by the judge, to which its members have to reply just 'yes' or 'no' in a secret vote. The jury court which heard the Jesuits' case gave its verdict in the manner described, convicting Colonel Guillermo Alfredo Benavides and Lieutenant Yusshy René Mendoza and acquitting Lieutenant Ricardo Espinoza Guerra, Sub-Lieutenant Gonzalo Guevara Cerritos and Privates Antonio Romero Avalos, Tomás Zárpate Castillo, Angel Pérez Vasquez, Oscar Marian Amaya Grimaldi and Jorge Alberto Cerna Ascencio (the last in his absence). The reasoning behind this verdict is possibly that Colonel Benavides, Director of the Military School, and Lieutenant Mendoza, an instructor at the School, were wholly responsible for the acts committed by their subordinates, since it was they who gave the orders. The other accused did not belong to the Military School, but to another battalion; they were not informed of the facts and were simply carrying out the orders of their superiors in a state of war, which is what the offensive of November 1989 was. It was considered, therefore, that members of the armed forces of lower rank could not oppose their superiors, possibly for fear of the consequences of disobedience, it being obvious that in normal circumstances it was not in any way possible to invoke the argument of 'due obedience'. The jury court is a manifestation of the sovereignty of the people, as represented by its members. Its finding cannot be questioned in any way and must be respected by the judge, who has to pass sentence on the basis of it and impose the penalties provided by law if the verdict is guilty. Questioning the verdict is totally unacceptable." 37. On 4 November 1991, the Special Rapporteur transmitted the following information to the Government of France, under annex I: "According to information received, Mr. Ludovic Bouteraon, aged 22, reported to the military service selection centre in spring 1990 and informed the military authorities that he wished to be given the status of a conscientious objector to military service. He asked to do alternative civilian service of a kind that would be compatible with his beliefs. It is alleged that Mr. Bouteraon was not informed of the procedure to be followed in order to be recognized as a conscientious objector. In July 1990, Mr. Bouteraon was ordered to report for military service on 1 August 1990 at an airbase near Strasbourg, which he did. On his arrival, he immediately stated that he had a conscientious objection to military service and refused to put on military uniform or carry arms. He was later arrested and held at the base until 17 August 1990, when he was brought before the 7th Correctional Chamber of the Court of Major Jurisdiction in Strasbourg, which sentenced him to 15 months in prison for insubordination. He was then* transferred to Elsau prison in Strasbourg. According to the sources, Mr. Bouteraon appealed against the decision and wrote to the French authorities on 8 August 1990, asking them to recognize him as a conscientious objector and to authorize him to perform an alternative