2 the military jurisdiction for the following reasons: (i) the accused were active-duty officials; (ii) they acted in the discharge of their assigned duties in a military operation; (iii) the legally protected interest is “discipline and the protection of life, the supreme aim of the State;” (iv) the acts were defined in the Code of Military Justice and occurred in a battle between commandos and terrorist group; and (v) they were acting in a zone declared to be in a “state of emergency.” The State also contended that the evidence must be examined in a domestic legal proceeding. It added that the criminal trial held in the civilian justice system was conducted in accordance with the procedural guidelines provided under the law. 5. After examining the position of the parties, the Inter-American Commission concluded that the Peruvian State is responsible for the violation of the rights to life, due process and judicial protection enshrined in Articles 4, 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligation set out in Article 1(1) of that instrument, to the detriment of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez and Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva. II. PROCEEDING BEFORE THE IACHR 6. APRODEH, Edgar Cruz Acuña and Herma Luz Cueva Torres lodged the initial petition on February 3, 2003. The procedures from the submission of the petition through the admissibility decision 2 are set out in detail in the Admissibility Report issued on February 27, 2004. 7. On March 11, 2004, the Commission notified the parties of the aforementioned report and, pursuant to Article 38.1 of the Rules of Procedure in effect at that time, granted the petitioners two months to present their additional observations on the merits. In addition, based on Article 38.2 of the Rules of Procedure, it placed itself at the parties’ disposal to seek a friendly settlement. 8. On June 1, 2004, the petitioners submitted their observations on the merits, which the IACHR forwarded to the State on June 17, 2004, requesting it to submit its observations within a two month period. The State did not submit its observations. 9. On October 25, 2004, the petitioners reported that Mr. Montesinos Torres, Mr. Nicolás de Bari Hermoza Ríos and Mr. Roberto Huamán Acurra, on trial in the civilian justice system in relation to the alleged events, had been released because a verdict had not been handed down within the time period established under the law. 10. On January 4, 2005, the petitioners asked to attend a hearing in relation to the instant case. On January 28, 2005, the Commission notified the parties of that hearing. That same day, the petitioners accredited CEJIL as a co-petitioner. A public hearing was held on the instant case on February 28, 2005, during its 122 regular session, which was attended by the petitioners and the State, and at which Mr. Hidetaka Ogura testified. 11. On April 23, 2008, the petitioners forwarded an additional communication on the merits. On May 23, 2008, the IACHR forwarded this communication to the State, requesting it to submit its observations within a one month period. On June 25, 2008, the State requested an extension of this time period, and a one month extension was granted on June 27 of that year. On August 5, 2008, the State submitted its observations. On September 2, 2008, the IACHR forwarded this communication to the petitioners, requesting them to submit their respective observations within a one month period. 12. On October 8, 2008, the petitioners submitted their observations on the State’s communication. On October 27, 2008, the IACHR forwarded them to the State, requesting it to present any observations it considered relevant within one month. On November 29 and December 29, 2008, the State requested an extension to respond to the Commission’s request. On December 2, 2008, and January 6, 2009, the Commission granted those extensions for periods of one month. 2 2004. IACHR, Report No. 13/04 (Admissibility), Petition 136/03, EDUARDO NICOLÁS CRUZ SÁNCHEZ ET AL, February 27,