5 preliminary investigation was assigned to the Second Provincial Prosecutor’s Office for Criminal Matters of the province of Huancayo. They state that on June 11, 2002, at the request of the Second Prosecutor’s Office of Huancayo, Mr. Quispealaya was given a medical examination by the Institute of Legal Medicine of the Medical-legal Division of Huancayo. It issued Medical-legal Certificate No. 006502-L, which concluded that “At the current date, the subject presents total and permanent loss of vision in the right eye, caused by advanced, post-traumatic cataracts and glaucoma, which are related to the data.” 20. They indicate that once the preliminary investigation concluded, the Second Provincial Prosecutor of Huancayo initiated a criminal action for serious injuries but considered that there were insufficient grounds to initiate an action for torture. The petitioners state that on October 18, 2002, they presented a motion for appeal (recurso de queja de derecho), but this was declared inadmissible by the Prosecutor of Huancayo, although it did modify the action to include abuse of authority. They indicate that the Fifth Criminal Court of Huancayo opened an investigation for the offense of serious injuries and abuse of authority, and it issued a warrant for the arrest of the defendant, although he was never detained. The petitioners claim that the military officers protected the defendant, a fact that became clear during the judicial inspection of the firing range of Azapampa, when the criminal judge recognized the defendant and ordered his arrest but was prevented by members of the Army. 21. The petitioners indicate that on November 19, 2002, the judge of the Fifth Military Court of Huancayo asked the judge of the Fifth Criminal Court of Huancayo to cede jurisdiction. They state that the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court settled the controversy over jurisdiction in favor of the military courts, concluding that the allegations constituted an offense in the course of duty [delito de function]. The petitioners state that on August 19, 2005, the Permanent War Council of the Second Judicial Area of the Army acquitted noncommissioned officer Juan Hilaquita Quispe for the offense of abuse of authority to the detriment of the alleged victim, and on November 17, 2005, the Supreme Council of Military Justice reversed the sentence of acquittal and ordered more detailed investigations. 22. The petitioners subsequently reported that on November 9, 2007, the military proceedings were transferred to the civil courts in order that S01 Juan Hilaquita Quispe be investigated and punished for crimes against life, body and health – specifically causing serious injury – and that on October 17, 2008, the First Criminal Provincial Prosecutor of Huancayo definitively closed the case. Allegations regarding the merits of the case 23. The petitioners claim that the State incurred international responsibility in this case at the moment that a state agent, S01 Juan Hilaquita Quispe, tortured Valdemir Quispealaya Vilcapoma, when he was performing voluntary military service in the Army, thus violating the alleged victim’s right to personal integrity protected in the American Convention and the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. They allege that the State incurred international responsibility for the failure to investigate effectively and to sanction the responsible parties. They indicate that the proceedings carried out in the domestic courts were for serious injuries and did not refer to the crime of torture, despite the fact that the seriousness of the acts committed against Mr. Quispealaya caused him to lose vision in his right eye, a fact proven by the Medical Report prepared by the Department of Ophthalmology of the Central Military Hospital of January 25, 2002, the Medical-legal Expert Report of March 2, 2002, Medical-legal Certificate 006502-L of June 11, 2002, and the psychological examination of June 11, 2002.