5 1995, the General Prosecutor of the Supreme Council of Military Justice communicated that they had been sentenced to life imprisonment [.] He also added that [b]y means of [official document no.] 222-95-MP-FN-FEDPDH-DH-V, dated April 18, 1995, the Director of the Maximum Security Criminal Establishment of Women-Chorrillos was asked for information on the legal situation and the state of health of certain prisoners [among whom was María Concepción Pincheira-Sáez.] He stated that this information was not obtained on this occasion. This information was supplemented on November 7, 1995, to provide that María Concepción Pincheira-Sáez had been sentenced to life imprisonment for the crime of treason against the fatherland and that she had been counseled during the entire proceeding by Dr. Castañeda. It referred to health problems and harassment on the part of the prisoners. Said information was sent to the petitioners on November 30, 1995. 11. On June 14, 1996, the petitioners asked the Commission to adopt precautionary measures on behalf of the alleged victims, as a result of the possibility that they would be transferred to an "uninhabitable" prison. The Commission requested that the Peruvian State provide information on this matter. By means of a note of July 16, 1996, the State reported that there was "no order of any kind to transfer the Chilean prisoners" to another penitentiary, in accordance with the final judgment handed down by the Supreme Special Military Court, which ordered that the sentence of life imprisonment should be served at the Maximum Security Prison at Yanamayo in Puno. 12. On November 19, 1996, the Commission communicated to the State that at its 93rd Regular Session the Commission had determined that Case 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, Peru refused the proposal of a friendly settlement, on the grounds that the alleged victims were tried, convicted, and sentenced pursuant to the provisions of Decree-law 25.659 and Decree-Law 25.708, which regulate the crime and corresponding procedure in cases of treason against the fatherland. Peru also asserted that it had observed the rules of due process and adhered to the principle of territoriality set forth in Article 1 of the Peruvian Criminal Code. 13. On December 17, 1996, the Commission received a report from the Supreme Court of Military Justice of Peru, in which it asserted that the Peruvian courts have jurisdiction in the cases of the alleged victims, since the crimes of which they are accused were committed in the jurisdiction of Peru, and because "the territoriality of criminal law is independent of the nationality of the perpetrator." Moreover, the State maintained that in the aforementioned cases it had observed the principles of due process, the right to appeal, judicial oversight, and rationale for the judgments. 14. On December 18, 1996, the petitioners requested that the Commission adopt precautionary measures to protect the physical integrity of the alleged victims, in consideration of the circumstances resulting from the seizure at the Japanese Embassy in Peru by members of the Revolutionary Movement Tupac Amaru (MRTA), a group with which the alleged victims had been associated.