were conducted. The same judge ordered the bodies buried in a distant cemetery. Next of kin were not allowed to identify them much less know where they were. 56. The petitioners assert that the criminal proceedings in the military courts against the Army personnel in the “Chavín de Huántar” Commando were instituted precisely in order to oust those responsible for the executions of the alleged victims from the jurisdiction of the civilian courts. To make their point, the petitioners describe how on the very day that Special Provincial Prosecutor Richard Saavedra Luján filed charges in the civilian court against all those associated with the event, among them members of this command, the Military Prosecutor also filed charges in the military criminal court in connection with the very same events, but only against the military commandos. He did not charge Vladimiro Montesinos, Nicolás Hermoza Ríos, Roberto Huaman Ascurra and Jesús Zamudio Aliaga. All the procedures to put that jurisdiction in motion and institute the inquiry into the crimes of abuse of authority and violation of international law were accomplished in just one day. Then came the jurisdictional challenge to wrest the case from the civilian courts. 57. As the petitioners report, the Supreme Court’s August 16, 2002 decision on the jurisdictional challenge went in favor of the military criminal justice system, but came in the midst of pressure from certain government ministers and failed attempts to pass amnesty bills on behalf of the accused. The ruling from the Supreme Court, which is the court of last resort, sealed the question of jurisdiction. 58. In the end, on October 15, 2003, the Chamber of the Supreme Council of Military Justice dismissed the case against the commandos, who had been charged with violation of international law, abuse of authority and qualified homicide. It did so on the grounds that the presence of a crime and the guilt of the accused had not been proved. The Inspector General of the Superior Council of Military Justice has had that ruling under review since November 30, 2003. 59. The Commission has always held that the military courts are not the proper forum and are not an effective recourse for investigating, prosecuting and punishing violations of the human rights protected under the American Convention and that are alleged to have been committed by members of the forces of law and order or with their help or acquiescence. 5 Similarly, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has ruled that military criminal justice is an appropriate forum for prosecuting members of the military for committing offenses or crimes that are violations of military rules.6 It follows, then, that the investigation and prosecution of Army personnel in the military justice system for the events related to the alleged executions of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez, Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva and David Peceros Pedraza, is not an adequate remedy for ascertaining their responsibility in the serious violations denounced, in the sense of Article 46(1) of the American Convention. 60. As for the proceedings conducted in the civilian courts, the Commission notes that because examining proceedings are in progress against Vladimiro Montesinos Torres, Roberto Huaman Ascurra, Nicolás Hermosa Ríos and Jesús Zamudio Aliaga, a case might be made for failure to exhaust the remedies under domestic law. However, it is also true that in the inquiry being conducted against Juan Fernando Dianderas Ottone, Martin Solari De La Fuente and Herbert Danilo Angeles Villanueva for the crime of obstruction of justice for their handling of the victims’ bodies, the scene of the events and the chain of custody of the evidence, the Third Anti-Corruption Judge issued a decision on October 17, 2003, dismissing the criminal case against the accused on grounds that they were acting on the orders of a court. 7 5 IACHR, Admissibility Report Nº 41/02, Case 11.748 Pueblo Bello, Colombia (2002), para. 24. Third Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Colombia (1999), p. 175; Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Colombia (1993), p. 246; Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Brazil (1997), pp.40-42. 6 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Durand and Ugarte Case, Judgment of August 16, 2000, paragraph 117. 7 “Juez Barreto ignoró pruebas para exculpar a ex Ministro Dianderas.” [Judge Barreto ignored the evidence in order to clear former Minister Dianderas], La República, November 20, 2003. 10