32. The petitioners also say that on June 25, 2002, the court prosecuted Sergio Rivera Bozzo, a lieutenant in the Navy at the time of the events, as perpetrator of repeated counts of the crimes of aggravated kidnapping. On February 7, 2006, the above lieutenant was convicted for his participation in the events as perpetrator of the crime of aggravated homicide and sentenced to five years' imprisonment, while the other accused were acquitted with prejudice. The petitioners say that the plaintiff and the Human Rights Program of the Ministry of the Interior (hereinafter, "PDH") appealed against that decision, particularly with regard to the acquittal with prejudice. 33. They say that on November 8, 2006, the Santiago Appellate Court upheld the judgment but amended Rivera Bozzo’s sentence, increasing it to 15 years' imprisonment; vacated the acquittal with prejudice of the other accused and ordered that the proceeding revert to the preliminary investigation stage in relation to the acquitted defendants, so that the judge with standing might "issue the appropriate rulings to give effect to the criminal responsibility rightly accruing to those accused based on the investigations in the proceeding.” The petitioners say that Rivera Bozzo’s defense filed a cassation appeal against that judgment alleging material errors, which they say was taken up, in spite of evident defects. 34. They say that on September 5, 2007, the Supreme Court vacated the appeal decision sua sponte citing a formal error which, they say, was not even alleged by the convicted man's defense, and returned a substitute judgment in which it reclassified the offense, sentenced Rivera Bozzo to five years and one day of imprisonment as the perpetrator of the crime of aggravated homicide of the alleged victims, and acquitted the other accused upon confirming the consulted decision of June 25, 2002. The petitioners mentioned that that acquittal was issued sua sponte without being requested, since the Court has legal authority to examine consultations of acquittals. 35. The petition states that it was filed as a consequence of the judgment issued by the Supreme Court, which, the petitioners say, covertly allowed the crimes committed against the alleged victims to go largely unpunished, given that in the judgment of September 5, 2007: (1) the criminal classification was modified sua sponte without prior discussion among the parties, with the punishable conduct reclassified as constituting aggravated homicide, rather than kidnapping, allowing the accused to benefit from the partial lapse of the statutory time period and a lower sentence based on the application of a form of statutory limitation in the criminal proceeding, despite the fact that crimes against humanity were involved; (2) the Supreme Court exonerated the four accused after considering that the exonerating circumstance of due obedience was applicable to them, without taking into account that they were all perpetrators and that at the time of the events they did not belong to the Armed Forces, but were paramilitaries. 36. A specific submission in this case is that as a result of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court, not only were four guilty individuals not punished, but the only one who was convicted did not receive an adequate penalty, with the result that the culprits have remained substantially unpunished. They argue that the obligation to impose penalties and the right of the families to know the truth was violated because those responsible were acquitted with prejudice after an exonerating factor envisaged in Article 10 (10) of the criminal code was applied. 15 On that point, they say that the Supreme Court, by considering that exonerating circumstance applicable, is saying that the crimes committed by those civilians were either acts apparently criminal in nature but which the individual was compelled by law to carry out, or were the result of an unlawful order from a superior, neither of which situations is consistent with the facts of the crime committed by those individuals. Moreover, however, that justifying factor requires observance of the principles of adequacy and proportionality. Consequently, the petitioners say, it does not protect against the unnecessary use of violence. They argue that the foregoing violates the obligation to impose penalties as well as the duty properly to investigate wrongdoing. 3. Case of Luis Evangelista Aguayo Fernández, Manuel Eduardo Bascuñán Aravena, José Ignacio Bustos Fuentes, Enrique Ángel Carreño González, Rafael Alonso Díaz Meza, Rolando Antonio Ibarra Ortega (López), Aroldo Vivian Laurie Luengo, Ireneo Alberto Méndez 15 That provision states: “Article 10. The following are exonerated from criminal responsibility: No. 10. He who acts in the performance of a duty, or in the legitimate exercise of a right, authority, office, or post.” 7