52 admissible based on the same facts or causes of a proceeding under way or already decided.” 168. According to the proven facts, the judgment of August 11, 1993, rendered by the Special Tribunal of the Supreme Council of Military Justice, acquitted Mr. Cantoral-Benavides and ordered his release. In response to a motion for review of said judgment, this same authority upheld, on September 24, 1993, the acquittal of the accused, but ordered that the records be sent to the regular jurisdiction, where he was to stand trial for the crime of terrorism. On October 8, 1993, the regular court ordered the opening of the investigation stage of the trial (supra para. 63.ñ.ii.). 169. As a result, a writ of habeas corpus was submitted on behalf of Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides (supra para. 63.n), but was declared inadmissible. Consequently, the action brought was ineffective and Mr. Luis Alberto CantoralBenavides remained in prison from February 6, 1993, the date of his detention, until June 25, 1997, when he was released as the result of a pardon. 170. For all these reasons, the Court concludes that the State violated, to the detriment of Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides, Articles 7(6) and 25(1) of the American Convention. XV NONCOMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLES 1(1) AND 2 OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS AND DUTY TO ADOPT DOMESTIC LEGAL EFFECTS 171. As regards noncompliance with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention, the Commission alleged that: a) as a consequence of the violation of the rights embodied in Articles 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the Convention, Peru also violated Article 1(1) of the Convention, which refers to the obligation to respect the rights and freedoms embodied in same, as well as the duty to ensure and guarantee their free and full exercise to all persons under the jurisdiction of the State; and b) because Peru had not brought its legislation into line with the Convention, modifying those laws that contradicted same, especially antisubversive legislation, it also violated Article 2 of the Convention. 172. For its part, the State argued that the topic of the alleged violation of Article 2 of the American Convention, due to the failure to adjust anti-subversive legislation to said Convention, was not presented by the petitioners before the Commission, nor transmitted by same to the State or included in Report No. 15-A-96, so it was not discussed previously in the proceedings before the Commission, and the internal jurisdiction of Peru on this matter was not exhausted. Therefore, the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear this matter. Since Decree Laws No. 25.475 and 25.659 were promulgated and published in 1992, when the application was filed in August 1996, the right to question such legislation had lapsed, as established in Article 46(1)b) of the Convention.