I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND CAUSE OF ACTION 1. The case submitted to the Court. – On September 22, 2017, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court the case of Rosadio Villavicencio v. the Republic of Peru (hereinafter “the State” or “Peru”). According to the Commission, the case relates to the alleged international responsibility of the State for the alleged violation of due process in the three proceedings against Jorge Rosadio Villavicencio: disciplinary, ordinary criminal and military criminal proceedings, regarding his participation in an intelligence operation where he had to infiltrate drug trafficking organizations in the Sión area of Peru. The Commission considered that in the disciplinary proceedings the State failed to comply with the obligation to provide prior notification in detail to the accused of the charges against him; it violated the alleged victim’s right to defend himself, the right to presumption of innocence and the right to adequate grounds, as well as the principle of freedom from ex post facto laws. In the military criminal jurisdiction, the Commission concluded that the State violated the alleged victim’s right to an independent and impartial judge, of receiving prior notification in detail of the charges against him, and the right to defend himself. In the ordinary criminal jurisdiction, the Commission maintained that the State violated the duty to provide grounds for the increase in sentence. The Commission also maintained that the principle of ne bis in idem1 was violated, given that two convictions were issued with penalties of the same nature (in the military criminal and ordinary criminal jurisdictions) based on the same facts. Finally, it claimed that Peru violated the right to personal liberty in relation to the preventive detention that he was subject to, as well as the right to an effective remedy to challenge the deprivation of liberty. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concluded that the State of Peru is responsible for the violation of the rights to personal liberty, to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection, enshrined in Articles 7(1), 7(3), 7(5), 7(6), 8(1), 8(2), 8(2) (b), (c), (e), 8(4) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Jorge Rosadio Villavicencio. 2. Proceedings before the Commission. – The proceedings before the Commission were as follows: a) b) c) d) e) Petition. – On April 13, 1998, Amelia Villavicencio de Rosadio (hereinafter “the petitioner”) submitted the initial petition to the Commission. Admissibility Report. – On February 20, 2003, the Commission approved Admissibility Report No. 13/03, whereby it concluded that the petition was admissible. 2 Report on the Merits. – On May 23, 2017, the Commission approved Report on the Merits No. 42/17, in conformity with Article 50 of the Convention (hereinafter “the Report on the Merits” or “Report on the Merits No. 42/17”). In that report the Commission reached a number of conclusions and made several recommendations to the State. The Report on the Merits was notified to the State on June 23, 2017. Report on the Commission’s recommendations. – The State of Peru submitted a brief in which it rejected the conclusions of the Report on the Merits and indicated that no reparation was required for the alleged victim. Submission to the Court. – On September 22, 2017, the Commission submitted all of the facts and human rights violations described in the Report on the Merits to the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court “due to the need to obtain justice for the [alleged] victim.” 3 Although the doctrine in criminal matters distinguishes between the terms non bis in idem and ne bis in idem, in the instant case the Court will use ne bis in idem regardless of the expression used by the parties or the Commission. 2 In that report, the Commission decided that the petition was admissible regarding the alleged violation of the rights recognized in Articles 1(1), 7, 8 and 9 of the American Convention to the detriment of Jorge Rosadio Villavicencio. Cf. Admissibility Report No. 13/03, Case of Jorge Rosadio Villavicencio, February 20, 2003 (evidence file, folio 1085). 3 The Commission appointed as its delegates before the Court Commissioner Paulo Vannuchi and Executive Secretary Paulo Abrão. Furthermore, it appointed as legal advisors Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, who was Assistant Executive Secretary at the time, and Silvia Serrano Guzmán and Christian González Chacón, attorneys of the Executive Secretariat. 1 4