23 Conviction of Sergeant Second-Class Evangelista Pinedo 116. The defendant admitted to the facts set out in the charges of July 14, 2006, pled guilty to the crime with which he was accused, and accepted responsibility for the civil redress in order to obtain more lenient sentencing. Consequently, on July 23, 2008, the National Criminal Chamber handed down a conviction against Antonio Mauricio Evangelista Pinedo for the crimes against life, body and health (simple homicide) with respect to Zulema Tarazona Arrieta and Norma Teresa Pérez Chávez, and for the crime of grievous bodily harm with respect to Luis Alberto Bejarano Laura, and imposed on him a six-year custodial sentence, reduced by the length of his detention from September 13, 1994, to August 29, 1995, 124 on the orders of the Third Permanent Military Court, and from June 19, 2008. 117. The Court found that the accused’s actions “were more a disproportionate use of force by a member of the Army, with respect to which the institution failed to exert effective control, as acknowledged by the patrol commander; however, while the legal definitions of the offenses indicated in the charged were met, it cannot be considered an extrajudicial killing and therefore does not constitute a 125 crime against humanity.” 118. The judgment also set civil redress at 30,000 new sols, to be paid jointly by the accused and the State (Peruvian Army) to each of the victims Zulema Tarazona Arrieta and Norma Teresa Pérez Chávez, and at 10,000 new sols, payable to Luis Alberto Bejarano. The judgment states that in setting the civil redress amount, it was constrained by the amount requested by the Public Prosecution Service, and that although the civil complainants requested an increase to that amount, the request was ruled untimely in that it was only filed three days before the hearing began. In addition, the Court ruled to disallow “compensation for the lost earnings the victims would have received if they were alive as of the date of the judgment, because under such a scenario said earnings would be infinite. What can be compensated is the pain and suffering inflicted on their families and heirs, understood as emotional injury, and since there is no way of repairing that than with the payment of a sum of money, it must be compensated for in 126 that way.” 119. On July 24, 2008, the petitioners filed a remedy for annulment “as regards the ruling on 127 civil redress,” for which they set out the grounds in a submission dated August 6, 2008: namely, the failure to take into account that the civil responsibility that arises from the commission of a crime must address such aspects as restitution, redress of the harm caused, and compensation for material and 128 moral damages. On November 4, 2008, the First Temporary Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court rejected the remedy for annulment filed by the petitioners on the grounds that although they questioned the civil redress amount requested in the charges by the representative of the Public Prosecution Service, 129 they did so after the deadline set by Article 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On December 24, 130 2008, the judgment of July 23, 2008, became final. 124 Annex 1: Judgment of July 23, 2008, National Criminal Chamber, case file No. 13-06, Case: Antonio Evangelista Pinedo. Annex to the petitioners’ submission of July 27, 2011. 125 Annex 1: Judgment of July 23, 2008, National Criminal Chamber, case file No. 13-06, Case: Antonio Evangelista Pinedo. Annex to the petitioners’ submission of July 27, 2011. 126 Annex 1: Judgment of July 23, 2008, National Criminal Chamber, case file No. 13-06, Case: Antonio Evangelista Pinedo. Annex to the petitioners’ submission of July 27, 2011. 127 Annex 80: Document from APRODEH and FIDH, addressed to the President of the National Criminal Chamber, July 2008. Annex to the petitioners’ submission of July 27, 2011. 128 Annex 2: Grounds of the remedy for annulment presented by the civil complainants on August 6, 2008, against the judgment of July 23, 2008, with respect to its provisions regarding redress. Annex to the petitioners’ submission of July 27, 2011. 129 Annex 81: Document of the First Temporary Criminal Chamber R.N. No. 4370-2008, dated November 4, 2008. Annex to the petitioners’ submission of July 27, 2011. 130 Annex 82: Judgment of the National Criminal Chamber of December 24, 2008, case file No. 13-06, signed by Julia Esther Esquivel Apaza, Clerk, National Criminal Chamber. Annex to the petitioners’ submission of July 27, 2011.