95 202. The elements that compose the situation regulated by Article 8(4) of the Convention include “a first trial culminating in an acquittal by a non-appealable judgment.”266 203. In this judgment (supra paras. 139 to 150), the Court has ruled that the application of military criminal justice to civilians violates the provisions relating to the competent, independent and impartial judge (Article 8(1) of the American Convention). 204. This determination is congruent with the reasoning of the Court in the Cantoral Benavides, Castillo Petruzzi et al., Cesti Hurtado, and Durand and Ugarte cases.267 In the first three, this Court declared that military justice applied to civilians violates the norms of the American Convention as regards a competent, independent and impartial judge, and in the third case, it ruled on the limits to the natural competence of military justice. 205. In this case, according to the representatives, the first trial is constituted by the proceedings conducted by the military criminal court against Lori Berenson for the crime of treason. 206. In keeping with this, in the instant case, the violation of the principle of access to a competent, independent and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, is sufficient to determine that the procedures carried out and the decisions adopted by the authorities in the exclusive military jurisdiction in relation to Lori Berenson, did not constitute a real proceeding under Article 8(4) of the Convention. 207. Moreover, the alleged victim’s defense lawyer filed a appeal for review of res judicata on December 7, 1999, before the Supreme Council of Military Justice (supra para. 88(38), which subsequently admitted this appeal (supra para. 88(43)), and forwarded the main case records to the Supreme Military Tribunal. The latter handed down its judgment on August 24, 2000, waiving competence and disqualified itself in favor of the ordinary jurisdiction, since there were facts that “indicated that the crime of terrorism had been committed, which was penalized by Decree Law No. 25,475, which fell within the competence of the ordinary jurisdiction” (supra para. 88(44)). 208. The trial in the military jurisdiction against Lori Berenson terminated with a non-appealable judgment delivered by the Supreme Council of Military Justice, which waived competence in favor of the ordinary jurisdiction, without ruling on merits. Consequently, since there had been no ruling on merits in the military jurisdiction, the essential element for declaring that the non bis in idem principle has been affected does not exist. 209. Based on the above, the Court considers that, in the circumstances of the instant case, it has not been proved that the State violated Article 8(4) of the Convention to the detriment of the alleged victim. * 266 267 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides, supra note 25, para. 137. Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides, supra note 25, para. 139; Case of Durand and Ugarte, supra note 210, para. 117; Case of Cesti Hurtado. Judgment of September 29, 1999. Series C No. 56, para. 151; and Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al., supra note 25, para. 128.