3 13. The State submitted its observations on February 6 and 12, 2009. On March 23, 2009, the IACHR forwarded them to the petitioners, requesting them to submit their observations within a one month period. On April 29, 2009, the petitioners requested an extension of time for the submission of their observations, which was granted on May 11, 2009. On May 15, 2009, the petitioners submitted their observations, which were forwarded to the State on May 26, 2009. On March 26, 2010, the State submitted a communication, which was forwarded to the petitioners on March 31, 2010. 14. On February 8, 2011, the petitioners submitted additional information. On February 8, 2011, the IACHR forwarded this information to the State and requested it to submit its observations within a one month period. III. POSITION OF THE PARTIES A. Position of the petitioners 15. The petitioners alleged that in response to the seizure of the residence of the Ambassador of Japan in Peru by members of the Túpac Amaru Revolutionary Movement (hereinafter “MRTA”) on December 17, 1996, the government appointed a High Level Commission to negotiate the demands of the MRTA members and to seek the release of the hostages. The government was able to secure the release of most of the hostages. The negotiations stalled on several occasions, however, and on March 6, 1997, the MRTA leader announced the suspension of talks after discovering that the government was digging a tunnel to gain access to the residence. 16. In this context, then President of the Republic, Alberto Fujimori Fujimori, together with presidential advisor Vladimiro Montesinos Torres and the Commander General of the Armed Forces, Nicolás de Bari Hermoza Ríos, planned a rescue operation called “Chavín de Huántar.” On April 22, 1997, the government decided to storm the residence, believing that the situation had reached the point where neither party was going to give in. The government also had obtained information from inside the residence indicating that the situation had reached an extreme in which the integrity of the hostages was at risk. During the rescue operation, 71 hostages were freed and one hostage, two members of the security forces and all fourteen MRTA members died. According to the official version, the latter died in battle. The petitioners contend, however, that subsequent testimony and expert examinations indicate the contrary, at least in regard to the three victims in the instant case. 17. The petitioners asserted that the day after the events, the Special Military Judge ordered that the bodies be collected and transferred to the Central Hospital of the National Police to perform the relevant examinations rather than to the Institute of Forensic Medicine for an official autopsy. The Director General of the National Police ordered the General Director of Health to perform the autopsies in an environment that would allow “strict control over the entry of persons” and prohibited the taking of photographs or films. The petitioners claim that the autopsies were not performed according to legal and scientific standards and that medical experts were denied entry, and therefore no ballistics, anthropological, explosives or other tests were performed. They also claimed that the next of kin were not allowed to identify the bodies, which had been secretly buried in different cemeteries in the city of Lima. 18. The petitioners pointed out that four years after the events, based on a complaint lodged by the next of kin, the Office of the Attorney General requested the pre-trial detention of officers of the armed forces and this request was upheld by the presiding judge. For its part, the military justice system initiated a proceeding against 140 commandos who had participated in the operation on charges of abuse of authority and international law violations [jus gentium] under the Code of Military Justice. This gave rise to a challenge over jurisdiction to try the matter. The Supreme Court of Justice ruled in favor of the military justice system for the investigation of several commandos, arguing that because the operation took place in an area that had been declared an emergency zone and during a military operation, any criminal offenses they may have committed fell under military jurisdiction. The Court further pointed out that anyone other than those commandos would be regarded as offenders for crimes set out under civilian law.