6 APPROPRIATE PROCEDURAL CHANNEL TO ESTABLISH COMPETENCE 22. Points 3 and 4 of the request for interpretation refer essentially to the same matter; therefore, the Court will proceed to examine them together. 23. In the third point, the State referred to paragraph 130 of the judgment on the merits and consulted the Court whether it could be maintained that the said judgment constituted a precedent that might, in the future, be applied to similar cases occurring under the national jurisdictions of the States Parties and under international jurisdiction, in the sense that habeas corpus constituted the appropriate procedural route for disputing the military jurisdiction when there was an alleged deprivation of liberty or threat of this. 24. In its fourth point, the State requested an interpretation of paragraph 132 of the judgment on the merits in order to know what the correct way to act would be if, for example, someone accused of aggravated terrorism or treason should dispute the competence of the military jurisdiction when the latter had initiated a trial, by filing a petition for habeas corpus; and “[w]hat other channels the military justice system would have had to ‘insist on its own competence’.” 25. Paragraph 130 of the judgment states that [a]s the State has alleged, Peruvian legislation embodies recourses other than habeas corpus to settle jurisdictional disputes between different judicial organs. However, it is also certain that, according to the American Convention and Peruvian legislation itself, the judge of the petition for habeas corpus has the latitude to deal with the competence of the official who has ordered the deprivation of liberty. Indeed, in the context of the facts of the instant case, the judicial authority responsible for deciding on habeas corpus should have examined the information available in order to define whether the intended arrest was arbitrary. This information necessarily included the competence of the authority who issued the order of arrest, taking into consideration the alleged facts and the circumstances of the person to whom they were attributed and, consequently, the regularity of the proceedings under which the order would be issued. Paragraph 132 of the judgment indicates “that the habeas corpus decision never deprived the military justice system of the possibility of insisting on its own competence, through the adequate legal channels, in order to definitively resolve the dispute.” 26. The Inter-American Commission stated that paragraph 130 of the judgment on the merits clearly resolved the question posed by the State in its points 3 and 4, so that it was not in order for the Court to make a pronouncement on them. 27. The Court considers that domestic legislation usually establishes an appropriate procedural channel for resolving jurisdictional disputes. Likewise, the judge of a petition for habeas corpus decides whether a deprivation of liberty is of an arbitrary nature. The judgment on the merits only refers to this. It is not in order for this Court to make a pronouncement with regard to the applicability of its judgments in hypothetical future situations. IX JURISPRUDENCE OF THE COURT