4 19. The petitioners reported that in 2004, in the course of the trial in the civilian justice system, Vladimiro Montesinos, Nicolás de Bari and Roberto Huamán Azurra were ordered released on grounds that the statute of limitations for pre-trial detention had expired. They also claimed that the arrest warrant against Zamudio Aliaga had never been enforced. Subsequently, at the conclusion of the investigatory phase, the prosecutor assigned to the case determined that the criminal liability of Bari Hermoza Ríos, Montesinos Torres, Huamán Azcurra, Zamudio Aliaga, Vianderas Ottone, Solari de la Fuente and Ángeles Villanueva had been demonstrated. The Third Special Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima took up the criminal charges filed by the prosecutor and public hearings are currently underway. 20. They added that in August 2003, the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation filed a complaint against former President Fujimori; the constitutional proceeding, however, was set aside and only recently have formal charges been brought and a case opened against him for extrajudicial executions in the instant case. 21. Based on the foregoing, the petitioners contend that the events described hereinabove constitute violations of Articles 4, 8 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, all in relation to Article 1(1) of that instrument. 22. In relation to Article 4 of the Convention, the petitioners specifically claimed that State agents summarily executed Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez, Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva and Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza during the military operation. In this regard, they pointed out that notwithstanding the official version to the effect that the MRTA members had died in battle, witness testimony and the expert medical examinations performed on the bodies indicate that the victims in this case at least were summarily executed. They contended that during the operation, State agents incurred in a disproportionate use of force after having repelled the danger. They added that while the military incursion anticipated the use of the necessary armed force to protect the lives of the hostages, it failed to include sufficient safeguards to ensure proportionality and the necessary use of force once the situation was under control, and did not anticipate the possibility of arresting the MRTA members. The petitioners claimed that, to the contrary, the commandos were instructed to neutralize them and finish them off, and added that there was a parallel chain of command that took orders from Vladimiro Montesinos in order to ensure that the MRTA members would be executed. Hence, unidentified commandos “were given the mission to ensure the execution of any terrorists that might have been left wounded.” Moreover, State agents used the technique of “selective instinctive shooting” and did not have instruments to neutralize and detain the MRTA members. The petitioners added that although the authorities were apprised of what was occurring during the operation, they did not prohibit illegal orders during either the planning or commando training process or issue clear orders to prevent the execution of the victims. Finally, they asserted that the State has not conducted a serious, impartial and effective investigation into the executions. 23. The petitioners pointed out that while they are aware that the actions of the MRTA constituted a legitimate reason for Peru to deploy its security forces, the prohibition on the arbitrary taking of life is absolute and may not be suspended under any circumstances. 24. In relation to Article 8 of the Convention, the petitioners claimed that the State failed to conduct an effective, impartial and serious investigation and as a result, over thirteen years have transpired during which time the perpetrators of the extrajudicial executions have not been tried. They asserted, among other things, that Peru did not officially open an investigation into the incidents, it applied the military justice system, it failed to protect the evidence, it did not allow the next-of-kin access to the victims and it has exerted pressure on the judiciary during the proceedings. According to the petitioners, for all of these reasons, the facts in this case have gone unpunished. 25. In this regard, they claim that the military justice system is not the appropriate jurisdiction for investigating the incidents, since the independence and impartiality of the military tribunal is compromised. Indeed, the military judge that ordered the collection, autopsies and burial of the bodies did