2 Nationality); Article 29 (Restrictions Regarding Interpretation), in combination with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, and Article 51(2), all from the American Convention. The Commission also requested that the Court find that “the State must make full restitution” to the alleged victims for the “grievous material and moral damages they suffered.” It therefore asked the Court to call upon the State “to order their immediate release and to pay them fair compensation.” It also requested that the State be ordered to pay “the reasonable costs and expenses of the [alleged] victims and their next of kin.” II COMPETENCE 2. Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 28, 1978, and recognized the jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. Therefore, under Article 62(3) of the Convention the Court has jurisdiction to consider the merits of the instant case. III PROCEEDINGS WITH THE COMMISSION 3. On January 28, 1994, Mrs. Verónica Reyna, Head of the Legal Department of the Chilean organization Fundación de Ayuda Social de las Iglesias Cristianas (hereinafter “FASIC”), submitted the first petition in this case. On June 29, l994, the Commission forwarded the pertinent parts of that petition to the State with the request that the latter supply information relevant to the subject of the petition within ninety days. It also asked that the State provide information concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies. 4. On August 26, 1994, a second group of claimants provided new information on the case and on September 29, 1994, they reiterated their complaint. On November 18, 1994, that second group of claimants requested that Mr. Astorga Valdez’ case be joined with the original case. In a November 22, 1994 telephone conversation, the Secretariat of the Commission advised the second group that they would need a power of attorney or authorization from the original claimants in order to become co-claimants in the case. 5. On September 14, 1994, the State presented information, together with a copy of Official Document No. 534-S-CSJM of the Superior Court of Military Justice, dated September 1, 1994. That report stated the following: Case No. 078-TP-93-L [against Castillo Petruzzi, Pincheira Sáez and Mellado Saavedra] was prosecuted before the Military Court of the Peruvian Air Force [hereinafter “FAP”]. The charge was treason. The court convicted the defendants of the crime with which they were charged and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The State added that Peruvian courts had “jurisdiction over crimes committed within the national territory[,] as a matter of sovereignty,” and that Peru’s criminal laws applied irrespective of the nationality or domicile of the author of the crime. It also observed that the criminal conduct that Decree-Law No. 25,659 classified as treason was aggravated terrorism; “given the nature of the crime and the manner in which it is perpetrated, the tribunals that hear such cases must take the necessary security