31 86.55 On February 15 and 16, 1994, the defense attorneys of the two defendants requested that the ruling of the court of first instance be nullified.74 86.56 On March 14, 1994, the FAP Special Tribunal upheld the January 7, 1994 ruling of the court of first instance.75 86.57 The defense attorneys for Mrs. Pincheira Sáez and Mr. Mellado Saavedra filed a motion to have that ruling nullified, and the case went to the Special Tribunal of the Supreme Court of Military Justice.76 86.58 On April 28, 1994, the Assistant Special Prosecutor General presented his opinion wherein he asked that the court agree to the motion to nullify only in respect of the sentence given to Mrs. Pincheira Sáez and Mr. Mellado Saavedra. He asked that the sentence be changed from life to 40 years’ imprisonment.77 86.59 On May 3, 1994, the Special Tribunal of the Supreme Court of Military Justice ruled that there were no grounds for the motion seeking nullification of the March 14, 1994 ruling. It therefore confirmed the January 7, 1994 ruling of the court of first instance and declared that the motion filed by Mrs. Pincheira Sáez and Mr. Mellado Saavedra for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was without merit.78 VII PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS 87. Now that the Court has established which proven facts are material to the case, it will examine the arguments of the Inter-American Commission and of the State in order to determine whether the latter bears international responsibility for the violations of the American Convention being alleged. To that end, the Court will summarize the arguments made by the Commission in the application and in its final 74. Cf. Brief of defense attorney Juan Fernando Castañeda Abarca, dated February 15,1994, pp. 850851; brief of defense attorney David Barrios Franco, dated February 16,1994, pp. 848-849; record of the February 16, 1994 hearing held in the proceedings against Jaime Castillo Petruzzi et al. on charges of treason, p. 854; all from file 078 TP 93 ZJ FAP. 75. Cf. Judgment of the FAP Special Military Tribunal, March 14, 1994, file 078 TP 93 ZJ FAP. 76. Cf. Article 2 of Decree-Law No. 25,708 (procedure in trials for treason), promulgated on September 10, 1992; Article 5 of Decree-Law No. 25,659 (regulating the crime of treason), promulgated on September 2, 1992; Article 13.g of Decree-Law No. 25,475 (sentencing guidelines for terrorism crimes and procedure for their investigation, inquiry and trial), promulgated on May 5 May, 1992; brief of the defense attorney for Mrs. María Concepción Pincheira Sáez, dated March 24, 1994, p. 907; brief of the defense attorney for Mr. Lautaro Enrique Mellado Saavedra, dated March 24, 1994, pp. 908-909; decision of the FAP Special Military Tribunal, April 21, 1994, p. 917; these last documents are from file 078 TP ZJ ZAP 93. 77. Cf. Opinion of the Assistant Special Prosecutor General, dated April 28, 1994, file 078 TO 93 ZJ FAP, pp. 925, 926, 938-940. 78. Cf. Judgment of May 3, 1994 of the Special Tribunal of the Supreme Court of Military Justice, file 078 TP 93 ZJ FAP, pp. 970 et seq.