5 lapse of the application as to the allegations of illegal and arbitrary arrest, torture and illegal treatment by agents of DINCOTE, and the subsequent judgment of Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides in a military court. Third Objection: lapse of the application to the extent that it declares that the Peruvian State is responsible for the violation of Article 7 of the Convention to the detriment of Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides, for ordering the release of his twin brother, instead of ordering his release in compliance with the August 11, 1993 Judgment of the Supreme Council of Military Justice. Fourth Objection: lapse of the part of the application that requests that the Court declare the Peruvian State responsible, because the proceedings against Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides for the crime of treason against the fatherland in the exclusive military jurisdiction and then for terrorism in the regular jurisdiction, violated to his detriment the rights and guarantees of legal due process, including the right to be heard by an independent and impartial tribunal (Article 8(1) of the Convention), the right to the presumption of innocence of the accused (Article 8(1) and (2) of the Convention), the right to a defense (Article 8(2)(d)), the right not to be compelled to be a witness against himself and not to be coerced in any way, (Article 8(2)(g) and (3) of the Convention), the guarantee that prohibits double jeopardy (Article 8(4) of the Convention), and that as a consequence of the violation of the rights set forth in Articles 5, 7, 8, and 25 of the Convention, it has also violated Article 1(1) of the aforementioned Convention as regards the duty to respect the rights and freedoms therein and to ensure and guarantee their free and full exercise to all persons subject to its jurisdiction. Fifth Objection: lack of a prior demand, non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, lack of standing, lack of jurisdiction, and the lapse of the part of the application which requests that the Court declare that the Peruvian State has violated Article 2 of the Convention by not modifying the anti-subversion laws which are contrary to the aforementioned Convention. Sixth Objection: lapse of the part of the application that demands that the Peruvian State make reparations to Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides, by compensating him and ordering his release. Seventh Objection: lack of competence as to the application in its entirety. 16. By note of September 26, 1996, in accordance with a request from Peru, the Secretary asked the Commission to remit, "all documents pertaining to the petition presented on behalf of Cantoral-Benavides, including resolutions, pronouncements, decisions, and charges" concerning the September 7, 1994, and February 15, 1995 notes from Peru and the November 25, 1994 note from the petitioners, referring respectively, to the alleged lapse, non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, and the information remitted by the petitioners that a motion for annulment was pending in the regular court. On October 25, 1996, the Commission responded that "it had not adopted a specific resolution, pronouncement, or decision with respect to those documents. The only pronouncement of the Commission regarding the file and the documentation in it was expressed in Report 15-A/96 which was approved by the ICHR at its NinetyFirst Regular Session in February of this year." 17. Moreover, in the same note, the Secretary of the Court asked the Commission, in accordance with Peru’s request, to remit any documentation pertaining to a writ of habeas corpus filed on behalf of Cantoral-Benavides.