2 II FACTS AS SET FORTH IN THE APPLICATION 2. According to the application, Peru violated the right to nationality of Jaime Francisco Castillo-Petruzzi, María Concepción Pincheira-Sáez, Lautaro Enrique Mellado-Saavedra and Alejandro Astorga-Valdéz by trying and convicting them of the crime of “treason against the fatherland,” pursuant to Decree-law 25,659, although they are not Peruvians. The Commission also asserted that these persons were not tried by a competent, independent, and impartial judge or court in violation of their right to a fair trial, because they were all tried, convicted, and sentenced to life imprisonment in Peru by a "faceless" tribunal under military jurisdiction. The Commission supports that statement, inter alia, with the following facts: a. On October 15, 1993, the alleged victims were detained by members of the National Anti-Terrorism Bureau. b. On November 20, 1993, the investigative judge decided to open an investigation against the alleged victims. c. On January 7, 1994, the Special Military Investigative Judge of the Peruvian Air Force rejected "the jurisdictional objection made by the accused Jaime Francisco Castillo-Petruzzi, María Concepción Pincheira-Sáez, and Lautaro Mellado-Saavedra, and upheld the jurisdictional objection made by the accused Alejandro Astorga-Valdéz." The first three accused were convicted as "perpetrators of the crime of treason against the fatherland, with a sentence of life imprisonment without parole, continuous solitary confinement for the first year of the sentence and then forced labor." In the case of Astorga-Valdéz, the court ruled that "this Court does not have jurisdiction to rule on his criminal conduct." d. On March 14, 1994, the military court of the second instance upheld the Judgment of January 7, 1994, rendered by the Special Military Court of the Peruvian Air Force. e. On May 3, 1994, the Special Military Supreme Court rejected the motion to annul the Resolution of March 14, 1994, and upheld the January 7, 1994 Judgment, rejecting as without merit the jurisdictional objection made by Mr. Castillo-Petruzzi, Ms. Pincheira-Sáez, and Mr. Mellado-Saavedra. The Court also held that "the part of the judgment that upheld the jurisdictional objection made by Alejandro Luis Astorga-Valdéz was annulled" and refused to hear the case on finding him responsible for the crime of terrorism [...] for which reason it denied the present motion and modified the judgment of the first instance, rejecting the jurisdictional objection made by Alejandro Luis Astorga-Valdéz and condemning him to life imprisonment as the perpetrator of the crime of treason against the fatherland. III PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION