116. Therefore, since the sanctions do not seek the same goal, the Court considers that the State did not violate the principle of ne bis in idem established in Article 8(4) of the Convention in relation to the ordinary criminal proceedings and the military disciplinary proceedings. B.1.2 Military criminal proceedings and military disciplinary proceedings 117. Lastly, regarding the possible violation of the principle of ne bis in idem due to the opening of the military criminal proceedings and the military disciplinary proceedings, the Court considers that both were based on the same facts, as inferred from the comparison of that included in the order of the General Army Command and the Minutes of the Investigative Council for Junior Officers in the disciplinary proceedings, cited above, and the judgment of the Permanent War Council of the Sixth Judicial Military Area of December 15, 1997, 101 which convicted Rosadio Villavicencio for the crime of failure to obey a lawful order in the military criminal jurisdiction. 118. Regarding these two proceedings, since the penalty imposed in the conviction of the military criminal proceedings is of a criminal nature and that of the disciplinary proceedings is of an administrative nature, the same considerations of the Court regarding the conviction in the ordinary criminal jurisdiction are applicable. 119. Consequently, in relation to the proceedings in the military criminal jurisdiction and the administrative disciplinary jurisdiction, there was no violation of Article 8(4) of the American Convention. B. Conclusion 120. In the instant case, the Court concludes that the State of Peru is responsible for the violation of the principle of ne bis in idem enshrined in Article 8(4) of the Convention to the detriment of Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio with regard to the ordinary criminal proceedings and the military criminal proceedings. The State of Peru did not violate the principle of ne bis in idem enshrined in Article 8(4) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio with regard to the disciplinary proceedings and the ordinary criminal and military criminal proceedings. VIII.2 RIGHT TO RECEIVE PRIOR NOTIFICATION IN DETAIL OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM, RIGHT TO DEFEND ONESELF AND RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THE REASONS FOR DETENTION (ARTICLES 1(1), 8(2)(b) AND 8(2)(c) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION) IN THE THREE PROCEEDINGS 121. Since the Commission and the representative claimed the lack of prior notification in detail of the charges against Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio in each of the three proceedings, the Court will now analyze the alleged violations jointly. A. Arguments of the Commission and the parties 122. The Commission indicated that, in relation to the investigation by the Inspectorate of the Leoncio Prado Detachment, there is no evidence in the file that the alleged victim, at the time of his first statement on September 15, 1994, had been previously notified of the facts and grounds for investigation; it was until September 25, 1994, that said officer was informed that he had been accused of ordinary and military crimes. Moreover, the communication of September 25, 1994, does not include the disciplinary grounds under investigation. Regarding the military criminal proceedings, the Commission indicated that Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio was not notified of the accusation dated October 17, 1995, by the Military Prosecutor’s Office regarding the offense against the duty and dignity of the service, abuse of authority and negligence. Based on the Judgment of the Permanent War Council of the Sixth Judicial Military Area, of December 15, 1997 (evidence file, folio 143). 101 28