47 the loss of assets suffered by being prevented from exercising his “right to work” (supra 5 y 179), and f. that the State should punish those responsible for the violations against the victim (supra 4.b). 191. The State rejects the Commission’s demands and, in this respect, states, a. that the immediate execution of the decision issued in favor of Gustavo Cesti Hurtado in the petition for habeas corpus (supra 111, 118 and 138) is a “legal impossibility”, as Gustavo Cesti Hurtado has been sentenced by a decision with the force and effect of res judicata and that, if the Court accepts this application, “it would result in procedural chaos, destabilizing the system of laws of the Peruvian State, which it would oblige to disregard the judgment of the tribunal to whose competence it submits under international law, by presuming the existence of an international system of laws”. Moreover, the State recalled that the decision issued in the petition for habeas corpus “had ceased to be valid, because Capt. (r) CESTI HURTADO, is no longer under the effects of the detention, the validity of which he challenged with the said petition, but sentenced to imprisonment by a decision which, we repeat, has the force and effect of res judicata”; b. that the demand that the effects of the proceeding against Gustavo Cesti Hurtado should be annulled (supra 20) is “extravagant and constitutes an attack on the sovereignty of the Peruvian State” because it is impossible to annul a judgment that has the nature of res judicata, in particular, when it is considered that Gustavo Cesti Hurtado did not bring the due actions to question the competence of the military justice system; c. that the claim that the victim should be compensated (supra 5) lacks merits, since the State has not violated any of his rights; d. that the claim that those responsible for the violations against Gustavo Cesti Hurtado should be punished (supra 4.b) was not included in the report issued by the Commission in the instant case, so that it is not viable and that, when the military judges who heard the proceeding against Gustavo Cesti Hurtado were denounced, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic stated “that they acted legitimately, in accordance with their functions”; and e. that it is not possible to resolve to assess costs in favor of the Commission (supra 5) because its claims are without merit in the instant case. 192. Article 63.1 of the American Convention establishes that [i]f the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or liberty protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or liberty that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or liberty be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party. 193. Regarding the Commission’s first claim, the Court has declared in this judgment that the petition for habeas corpus filed by Gustavo Cesti Hurtado met all the requirements established by the Convention (supra 126) and that the State is