have been independent. They further indicate that: under the terms of the Code of Military Justice, the experts were designated without notice to the accused, so there was no opportunity to recuse them; the accused had no opportunity to name their own experts; and, the “experts” were not certified public accountants. 24. The petition includes very general allegations to the effect that the quality and quantity of proof brought against the accused were insufficient to justify conviction. Further, the petitioners allege that the military tribunal arrived at its sentence following a secret meeting and vote of its members, in violation of the procedures required by the Code of Military Justice. 25. As noted above, a number of the defendants were condemned to pay monetary sanctions as part of the sentence, as well as other penalties. In this regard, the petitioners maintain that these defendants have been gravely prejudiced by being required to pay high rates of interest for the period of delay attributable to the State. They indicate that with the adjustment for interest over the years, the penalties are approximately doubled. There are ancillary claims to the effect that the parameters for establishing the rates of interest were neither clear nor fair. 26. The petitioners raise two allegations concerning the competence of the courts involved in the proceedings that relate to both Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. First, they indicate that the military judge assigned to direct the initial investigation was suffering from psychological problems at the time, was replaced approximately 3 months into the investigation, and was later relieved of his duties for the same reasons. Second, they contend that the National Chamber of Criminal Casation, which was directed to assume jurisdiction over their appeal by the Supreme Court, was not the proper court of review. Their principal allegation in this regard is that the National Chamber of Criminal Casation was established in 1992, subsequent to the commission of the offenses at issue, so that the right of the alleged victims to be tried by preexisting courts was violated. They further allege that the Supreme Court improperly denied their final “recurso de hecho” absent any substantive examination of the claims raised. 27. The petitioners argue that the right of the alleged victims to equal protection of the law under Article 24 of the American Convention was violated because, pursuant to their status as military personnel at the time of the offenses in question, they were processed through military jurisdiction prior to having access to the civilian judicial system. The petitioners emphasize that the military jurisdiction is an administrative tribunal, and not judicial in nature, so that military personnel such as the alleged victims were obliged to pass through a procedural stage not required of civilians. The petitioners question the compatibility of the military justice system with the requirements of the American Convention, noting, for example, the refusal of the National Chamber of Criminal Casation to review any questions of fact decided by the Supreme Council. 28. The petitioners’ allegations concerning Article 9 of the American Convention are that the alleged victims were subjected to the harsher of two norms concerning the applicable statute of limitations. They maintain that the Supreme Court violated the alleged victims’ right to application of the more beneficial of the two by arbitrarily opting to apply the statute of limitations in the Code of Criminal Procedure, thus permitting the continuation of the proceedings, as opposed to the 10 year statute of limitations applicable under the Code of Military Justice, which would have terminated central aspects of the prosecution. 29. Finally, the petitioners invoke the rights of the alleged victims under Article 10 of the American Convention to receive compensation for having been convicted by a final sentence through judicial error. In this regard, they emphasize in particular the right of the alleged victims to be compensated for the time spent in preventive detention in excess of the final prison sentences issued. 30. On the basis of the foregoing arguments, the petitioners maintain that the proceedings against them were flawed from the very beginning, and should have been nullified on the basis of numerous violations of their basic rights. They contend that the present petition meets all the requirements of admissibility. In particular, they affirm that domestic remedies were 5