46 not taken into account when the decisions were issued in the exclusive military jurisdiction, is the reason why the records were sent to the regular courts, and the acquittal of Mr. Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides was not executed in the military court. The accused could have contested the incriminating evidence, but did not; b) there is no double jeopardy for the same crime. The crime of treason against the fatherland is different from terrorism. If there were indications confirming liability for the commission of the crime of terrorism, this could not go unpunished because another trial had taken place for a different crime, treason against the fatherland; and c) the trial was normal and conducted in accordance with the rules of due process called for in and supported by the Constitution. * 136. * * Article 8(4) of the Convention states that: An accused person acquitted by a nonappealable judgment shall not be subjected to a new trial for the same cause. 137. The Court observes that one of the elements regulated by Article 8(4) is conduct of a first trial that ends in a final decision of acquittal. According to application of the Commission, that first trial, in the present case, would be military trial of Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides, for the crime of treason against fatherland. the the the the 138. In this same judgment (supra para. 114), the Court has stated that the application of military criminal justice to civilians infringes upon the provision regarding a competent, independent and impartial judge (Article 8(1) of the American Convention). This is enough to determine that the actions and decisions taken by the authorities of the exclusive military jurisdiction in the matter of Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides do not constitute the type of proceeding called for in Article 8(4) of the Convention. 139. This determination is consistent with reasoning of the Court in the CastilloPetruzzi et al. Cesti Hurtado and Durand and Ugarte cases.62 In the first two cases, this Court declared that the application of military justice to civilians violates the rules of the American Convention regarding the right to a competent, independent and impartial judge. In the third, it offered an opinion regarding the limits of the natural jurisdiction of military justice. 140. Based on the above, the Court considers that, given the circumstances of this case, the alleged infraction of Article 8(4) of the Convention is included in the violation of Article 8(1) of same. Consequently, the Court refers to its decision regarding the violation, by the State, of Article 8(1) of the Convention (supra para. 115). 62 Durand and Ugarte Case, supra note 45, para. 117; Cesti-Hurtado Case. Judgment of September 29, 1999. Series C No. 56, para. 151, and Castillo- Petruzzi et al. Case, supra note 9, para. 128.