93 a) Criminal proceeding in the military jurisdiction 191. The Court has observed in previous cases that the legislation applicable to crimes of treason has established the possibility of filing an appeal against the firstinstance judgment and an appeal for annulment against the second-instance judgment.261 Apart from these remedies, there is the special appeal for review of res judicata, based on the presentation of supervening evidence. In this case, the said appeals were filed by the alleged victim’s defense lawyer. Lastly, there is the possibility of filing an appeal for annulment before the Supreme Court of Justice against decisions of the military courts with regard to civilians. However, this remedy, embodied in the 1993 Constitution, was only admissible in cases of treason when the death penalty had been imposed.262 192. Nevertheless, trials against civilians in military courts for the crime of treason violate the guarantee of the competent, independent and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, stipulated in Article 8(1) of the Convention (supra paras. 88(13) to 88(37)). The Court has indicated that: The right to appeal the judgment, embodied in the Convention, is not satisfied merely because there is a higher court than the one that tried and convicted the accused and to which the latter has or may have recourse. For a true review of the judgment, in the sense required by the Convention, the higher court must have the jurisdictional authority to take up the particular case in question. It is important to underscore the fact that from first to last instance, a criminal proceeding is a single proceeding in various stages. Therefore the concept of a tribunal previously established by law and the principle of due process apply throughout all those phases and must be observed in all the various procedural instances. If the court of second instance fails to satisfy the requirements that a court must meet to be a competent, independent and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, then the phase of the proceeding conducted before it cannot be deemed either lawful or valid.263 193. In the instant case, the second-instance court was part of the military structure and, as such, did not have the independence necessary to act as or be a natural judge to try civilians. Therefore, although remedies, albeit very restrictive ones, did exist that could be used by defendants, there were no real guarantees that the case would be reconsidered by a higher court that satisfied the requirements of competency, impartiality and independence established in the Convention.264 194. In view of the above, the Court declares that the State violated Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention to the detriment of the alleged victim, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, in the proceeding in the military jurisdiction. b) Criminal proceeding in the ordinary jurisdiction 195. On July 3, 2001, the alleged victim’s defense lawyer filed an appeal for annulment of the judgment delivered by the National Terrorism Chamber on June 20, 2001 (supra para. 88(70)). On February 13, 2002, the Supreme Court of Justice rejected the annulment of this judgment. 261 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al., supra note 25, para. 160. 262 Cf. Articles 141 and 173 of the 1993 Constitution of Peru. 263 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al., supra note 25, para. 161. 264 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al., supra note 25, para. 161.