VII-2 RIGHTS TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT AND ENSURE THE RIGHTS AND THE OBLIGATION TO ADOPT PROVISIONS OF DOMESTC LAW, AS WELL AS TO THE OBLIGATIONS CONTAINED IN ARTICLES I AND III OF THE INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON FORCED DISAPPEARANCE OF PERSONS, TO THE DETRIMENT OF JEREMÍAS OSORIO RIVERA AND OF HIS FAMILY MEMBERS 172. In this chapter, the Court will summarize the arguments of the parties and the InterAmerican Commission, and will then rule on the merits of the matter in relation to the alleged violations of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention and Article I(b) of the InterAmerican Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. 283 It will then rule on the alleged violations of Articles 2 of the American Convention and III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 173. Regarding the first criminal investigation, the Commission argued that the judicial and prosecution authorities involved in the proceedings failed to order basic measures, such as statements from eyewitnesses of the detention of Jeremías Osorio Rivera, despite the civil party’s request. It added that all these omissions impaired the right of the family members to know the truth. The Commission also indicated that the proceedings were delayed without any justification owing to successive decisions to expand the procedural time frames and that, in December 1991 and January 1992, the Cajatambo Investigating Court which was hearing the case did not have a judge. Regarding the investigation by the Third Permanent Military Court of Lima, the Commission underlined that neither did this court take relevant measures. The Commission emphasized that allowing military courts to hear cases of crimes involving human rights violations is per se contrary to Article 8(1) of the Convention and that “between July 1992 and February 1996, the criminal proceedings into Jeremías Osorio Rivera’s disappearance were heard by courts and judges that not only lacked guarantees of impartiality and independence, but that also acted negligently in order to keep serious human rights violations committed by State agents under a blanket of impunity.” Referring to the criminal proceeding opened in the ordinary jurisdiction, the Commission emphasized that a series of measures had been taken, but, nevertheless, the omission of an onsite inspection of the sites where the victim could have been taken during the first days of his detention, and the failure to summon eyewitnesses to testify has had serious consequences for the discovery of the whereabouts of Jeremías Osorio Rivera and of the truth of what happened, owing to the passage of time. Also, according to the Commission, another obstacle to the proceedings has been the denial of information by the Personnel Directorate of the Ministry of Defense concerning the military personnel who were serving at the Cajatambo Counter-subversive Military Base at the date of Jeremías Osorio Rivera’s disappearance. During the public hearing, the Commission affirmed that the final judgment had deficiencies such as the fact that it indicated that Jeremías Osorio Rivera did indeed suffer ill-treatment and inhuman treatment, without ordering the investigation ex officio of this situation. The Commission also advised the State that it should abstain from citing the principle of ne bis in idem, because the acquittal was made possible owing to an investigation that was incompatible with the American Convention, because of serious defects as regards the standards for due diligence in relation to enforced disappearance. The Commission indicated that the State persisted in failing to comply with the obligation to adopt domestic legal 283 According to the decision taken on its competence ratione temporis concerning possible violations of the InterAmerican Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons (supra paras. 27 to 35), the Court can rule on events that took place on or after March 15, 2002. 63