in the performance of his military function, and by the regular courts, for the crime of illicit drug trafficking. In addition, he was subjected to a disciplinary administrative proceeding, in keeping with the military procedures. It adds that “said proceedings have been carried out with full observance of the principles and rights of the jurisdictional function, and observing the guarantees of due process, as Mr. Rosadío Villavicencio had the unrestricted right to defense, making use of the remedies provided by our criminal and procedural order; the right to appeal has been respected, the judicial resolutions have been duly reasoned and justified. Therefore, in both judicial proceedings, military and regular, uniform resolutions have been handed down with respect to his legal situation that concluded he was criminally liable for the unlawful acts investigated, accordingly the respective judgments of liability were handed down.” 27. In terms of the principle of legality, the State argues that the Peruvian judicial organs have tried and convicted Mr. Rosadío Villavicencio for acts criminalized by Peru’s criminal law at the time he committed them. With respect to the right to liberty, the State indicates that the alleged victim has been deprived of liberty for having been tried and convicted of criminal conduct for which that is the penalty, and in all instances and jurisdictions it has been uniformly so, as his criminal liability was demonstrated. Therefore, there is no basis for characterizing his detention as arbitrary. For the same reason, it points out, the allegation that his honor was not respected and his dignity not recognized makes no sense. 28. In consideration of all the foregoing, the State argues that the petition is manifestly inadmissible. The State indicates that what the petitioner seeks is for the Commission to act as a court of review with respect to the proceedings and decisions of the Peruvian courts, and that it is not competent to do so, arguing that for the IACHR “to make a new assessment of the evidence and facts that gave rise to the prosecution and verdict is simply inadmissible.” IV. ANALYSIS A. The Commission’s competence 29. The petitioner is authorized by Article 44 of the American Convention to lodge complaints with the IACHR. The petition indicates as the alleged victim an individual person with respect to whom Peru undertook to respect and ensure the rights enshrined in the American Convention. As regards the State, the Commission notes that Peru has 8