3 3. On January 28, 1994, Verónica Reyna, Chief of the Legal Department of the Chilean organization Fundación de Ayuda Social de las Iglesias Cristianas (hereinafter "FASIC") submitted the first complaint in this case. On June 29, 1994, the Commission transmitted the pertinent parts of the complaint to the State and requested that it provide information within two months about the events reported in the complaint. The Commission also requested information concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies. 4. On August 26, 1994, a second group of complainants provided new information on the case, and on November 18, 1994, they added the case of Alejandro Astorga-Valdéz. In their first communication they reported that on January 6, 1994, the defense attorneys of the alleged victims were notified that they had two hours to consult the case file and prepare the defense, and that the judgment would be read the following day. On September 29, 1994, this group of petitioners reiterated their complaint. On November 22, 1994, the Secretariat of the Commission informed that group by telephone that it needed to have a power-ofattorney or an authorization from the initial petitioners in order to be included as copetitioners in the case. 5. On September 14, 1994, the State provided information, accompanied by a copy of Official Document No. 534-S-CSJM from the Superior Council of Military Justice dated September 1, 1994. In that report it was stated that: Case No 078-TP-93-L [against Castillo-Petruzzi, Pincheira-Sáez, and Mellado-Saavedra] for the crime of Treason Against the Fatherland was tried before the Military Court of the Air Force of Peru, which convicted them of the commission of the illegal criminal act charged and sentenced them to life in prison. Moreover, the State added that the Peruvian Courts "exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed within Peruvian national territory as an expression of sovereignty," and that the criminal law of Peru is binding independent of the perpetrator’s nationality and domicile. The State also specified that the type of crime denominated as treason against the fatherland in Law 25,659 identifies an aggravated act of terrorism, which "in view of its nature and the way it is carried out, requires courts that have the necessary assurances of security." Finally, the State maintained that in all proceedings that come before the military courts, the courts observe "the rules of due process, the right to appeal to a higher court (three appeals), judicial oversight, rationale for the decisions, inapplicability by analogy of criminal law, and inform the defendant of the charges against him" and provide the defendant with legal assistance. On September 23, 1994, the Commission transmitted a copy of Peru’s response to the petitioners. 6. On November 8, 1994, the original petitioners submitted their observations to the State’s answer. In their observations they requested that "the January complaint be expanded to include Alejandro Astorga-Valdéz," who had not been listed as a victim in the original complaint. In reference to his case, they provided that [i]n the ruling of the first instance, the military judge upheld the objection made by the defense regarding lack of jurisdiction.