4 that “there was no order of any kind to transfer the Chilean prisoners” to another prison facility. 13. On November 19, 1996, the Commission informed the State that at its 93rd session, it had determined that Case No. 11,319 was admissible and that the Commission was at the disposition of the parties to arrive at a friendly settlement. On February 6, 1997, the State rejected the proposed friendly settlement, based on the fact that the alleged victims had been “tried, convicted, and sentenced in accordance with Decree-Law 25,659 and Decree-Law 25,708, which regulate the crime and corresponding procedure in cases of treason. It also pointed out that the rules of due process and the principle of territoriality established in Article 1 of the Peruvian Criminal Code had been observed. 14. On December 17, 1996, the Commission received a report from Peru’s Supreme Court of Military Justice wherein it asserted that Peruvian courts had jurisdiction in the cases prosecuted against the alleged victims, since the crimes with which they were charged were committed on Peruvian soil and that “the territoriality of criminal law is independent of the nationality of the perpetrator.” The State went on to point out that in the alleged victims’ cases, the rules of due process, right of appeal, judicial control, and the grounds for the judgments were observed. 15. On December 18, 1996, the claimants asked the Commission to take precautionary measures to protect the alleged victims’ physical safety, given the situation that developed when members of the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement (hereinafter the “MRTA”), the group with which the alleged victims had allegedly been associated, “took numerous people hostage at the residence of the Japanese Ambassador in Peru.” 16. On March 11, 1997, the Commission approved Report 17/97, the final part of which reads as follows: [...] 86. That by trying Jaime Francisco Castillo Petruzzi, María Concepción Pincheira Saéz, Lautaro Enrique Mellado Saavedra and Alejandro Astorga [Valdez] under Decree-Laws Nos. 25,475 and 25,659, the State of Peru violated the judicial guarantees recognized in Article 8(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights […] and the rights to nationality and to judicial protection recognized, respectively, in articles 20 and 25, all in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the Convention. 87. That the crime of treason classified under Peru’s legal system, violates universally accepted principles of international law, of legality, due process, judicial guarantees, right to a defense, and the right to be heard by impartial and independent courts. The Commission therefore resolved [to recommend] that the State of Peru: 88. Nullify the proceedings conducted in the military courts against Jaime Castillo Petruzzi, Lautaro Mellado Saavedra, María Concepción Pincheira Sáez and Alejandro Astorga [Valdez] on charges of treason, and order that they be given a new trial in the regular court system, with full guarantees of due process, and 89. Pursuant to Article 50 of the Convention, the Commission requests that the Peruvian Government inform the Commission within two months of any measures it has taken in the instant case in furtherance of the recommendations contained in the present report, which is confidential in nature and should not be published.