7 and punish those actions, it must also take all steps to prevent the occurrence of such attacks on citizens’ lives. 41. The petitioners note that during the processing of the case before the IACHR, the State acknowledged the alleged facts. They hold that although the State’s international responsibility for the violations of Articles 4 and 5 of the American Convention has been fully established, the agencies of the judiciary have not met their obligation of providing full compensation for the harm suffered by the victims by ruling that the redress not take into account future losses arising from the earnings the two deceased victims would have received and, with respect to Luis Alberto Bejarano Laura, by only taking into account the type of injury that threatened his life, together with the days he was unable to work. 42. The petitioners note that they are not seeking for the IACHR to serve as a court of appeal. They state that according to precedent established by the Inter-American Court, the parameters 5 used to set financial compensation by the local courts may be assessed, when said redress is inconsistent with the principles established by the Court. They hold that in such cases, additional redress 6 must be ordered. 43. The petitioners hold that the State is also responsible for violating Article 5 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof, with respect to the victims’ next-of-kin, in that they suffered intensely in the case at hand from the unexpected loss of their loved ones and from the serious injuries inflicted on one of the victims by the actions of state agents. They contend that the suffering of the alleged victims’ next-of-kin has increased on account of the numerous obstacles encountered during the processing of the criminal trial for the murder and injuring of their loved ones, on account of the sending of the proceedings to the archive under the amnesty law, and on account of the difficulties in reopening the proceedings and in locating and arresting the defendant. 44. The petitioners state that the facts alleged in the case at hand gave rise to criminal proceedings before the military justice system, a venue that clearly lacked jurisdiction. They hold that the military courts were not competent to hear the case, since the crime committed was a common offense and not a military one, thus violating the right to an impartial trial before a competent venue. They contend that according to precedent established by the Inter-American Court, criminal proceedings brought before the military justice system are intended to protect the perpetrators of serious human rights 7 violations, which undermines the right of access to justice. They hold that the State violated the right to be heard by one’s natural judge and, consequently, to due process, through the military courts assuming competence over a matter that should have been dealt with by the regular courts. 45. The petitioners claim that by enacting Laws 26479 and 26492 and applying their provisions in the criminal trial before the military courts, the State violated Article 2 of the American Convention. They further hold that those laws affected the victims’ next-of-kin by preventing them from participating in the criminal trial. 46. The petitioners contend that the State failed to conduct an investigation within a reasonable time. They hold that the State violated the rights enshrined in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in conjunction with the obligation to respect rights set forth in Article 1.1 thereof, through its unjustified delay in settling the questions of competence and merits, and through its lack of willingness to investigate and punish the facts alleged in the case at hand. They note that in this case 14 years went by between the commencement of the criminal trial before the civilian courts on November 25, 1994, and the 5 The petitioners cite the judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in: Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of May 11, 2007, Series C No. 163, para. 266. 6 The petitioners cite the following judgment: I/A Court H. R., Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of May 11, 2007, Series C No. 163, paras. 246 and 288. 7 142. The petitioners cite the Inter-American Court’s judgment in the La Cantuta Case, Judgment of November 29, 2006, para.