5 not fulfill the guarantee of independence and impartiality required by the American Convention, even if it did have jurisdiction under Peruvian law. In this regard, they pointed out that military judges are appointed and removed by the Executive Branch and are subject to its rules. 26. Moreover, they contended that the judges that subsequently presided in the case against the commandos also did not satisfy the requirements of independence and impartiality. They added that the partiality of the military justice system is evident in its organic structure and in its proceedings which, in the case at hand, were intended to extricate the perpetrators of the acts from the civilian justice system and ensure impunity. They added that notwithstanding numerous testimonies that point to the involvement and direction of the military judge and prosecutors in these irregularities, none of them has ever been charged. 27. According to the petitioners, the Supreme Court’s decision to remit the investigation of the acts associated with the commandos to the military justice system was erroneous. They pointed out that the provisions of the Code of Military Justice on which the Supreme Court based its decision are incompatible with inter-American standards. They added that the military justice system disregarded the evidence collected during the investigation before the ordinary criminal court, dismissed the case against the accused, and waited a month before making its ruling public so as to avert any challenge. The next of kin did not have access to the proceedings, which were secret. 28. Moreover, the petitioners asserted that the State failed to protect the evidence in order to conduct the investigation and did not allow the victims’ next of kin to participate in the proceedings. In this regard, it did not preserve the crime scene, the autopsies were performed in an irregular manner in contravention of legal and scientific standards; the bodies were examined in a facility that was not equipped for the task; the next of kin were not notified that these examinations were being performed, nor were they brought in to identify the bodies or informed about the autopsies, or the time and place of burial. What is more, the final version of the report was not released publically until four years after the events. 29. The petitioners stressed that the State did not open a legal investigation after the events occurred, and only did so four years later when the families of the victims lodged a complaint. The entire legal proceeding has been fraught with unjustified delays and prolonged lapses with no procedural activity whatsoever. In addition, individual responsibility has yet to be determined. All of this constitutes a violation of the right to be heard within a reasonable time period and a denial of justice. 30. In relation to Article 25 of the American Convention, the petitioners claim that the State failed to provide an effective remedy to the victims and their relatives. They noted that the initial taking of evidence was incomplete, deficient and irregular, with the attendant impact on subsequent legal proceedings. They added that the imposition of the military jurisdiction that precluded the courts of civilian jurisdiction from investigating, prosecuting and punishing the military personnel constitutes a serious violation of judicial protections and due process guarantees. They further noted that the commandos who were tried and acquitted by the military court are not being investigated by the civilian authorities based on an erroneous application of the principles of res judicata and non bis in idem. The failure to investigate and determine criminal liability constitutes a wrong to the victims and their relatives—whose right to truth and access to justice has been seriously violated—as well as a flagrant disregard for the duty to investigate. 31. According to the petitioners, the State is also responsible for violating the personal integrity of the victims’ next of kin. The asserted that these individuals had suffered deeply due to the execution of their relatives. To make matters worse, the State did not notify them of the transfer or burial of the bodies. It also failed to notify them of the findings of the autopsies performed on the victims or the causes and circumstances of their death. The petitioners added that those deaths were not even investigated until the relatives themselves lodged a criminal complaint. They contended that the families also have had to face the slow pace of the proceedings, attempts to cover up the deaths, and the lack of due diligence on the part of the authorities in the civilian and military jurisdictions.