observations on the content of the State’s response. These comments were transmitted to the State with a letter dated December 21, 2004, and it was granted one month to submit its observations. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. The petitioner 8. The petitioner alleged that in November 2000, Valdemir Quispialaya Vilcapoma, a 24-year old youth, began service as a volunteer soldier at “December 9” Army Base in the city of Huancayo, capital of Junín Department, and was sent to serve with No. 31 Communications Company. 9. It further alleged that on January 23, 2002, at approximately 10:00 a.m., members of the No. 31 Communications Company were engaged in a shooting practice, in which first noncommissioned officer of the Peruvian Armed Forces, Juan Ilaquita Quispe, was serving as instructor. During the practice, said officer became annoyed, because Valdemir Quispialaya Vilcapoma was missing the target, and so he insulted and reprimanded him, and told him to improve his marksmanship. When Soldier Quispialaya Vilcapoma did not improve during the practice, he grabbed his rifle and hit him hard with the butt of the rifle on the forehead and near the right eye. As a result of the violent blow, the soldier fainted and fell to the ground, unconscious. Later on, he warned the alleged victim not to report him, because “…if you do, I will make you disappear.” This was not the first time that Valdemir Quispialaya Vilcapoma had been punished by noncommissioned officer Ilaquita Quispe, as he had hit him on the legs and back with a stick on previous occasions. 10. Because of the medical condition of the alleged victim, military physicians had him transferred to the Central Military Hospital in the city of Lima, where he underwent surgery on his right eye. Despite that operation, he suffered an irreparable loss of vision in the right eye. 11. On February 28, 2002, COMISEDH lodged a complaint with the National Prosecutor [Fiscal de la Nación] against noncommissioned officer Juan Ilaquita Quispe, for a crime against humanity in the form of torture. The investigation fell to the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office [Fiscalía Provincial] for Criminal Matters in Huancayo, and on October 16, 2003, it announced its decision regarding the complaint against the noncommissioned officer in the Peruvian Armed Forces, Juan Ilaquita Quispe, for the crime of serious injuries. It dismissed the complaint of torture, on the grounds that based on the description of the events given by the injured party and on the legal definition of the crime, the behavior in question did not constitute torture. 12. The complainant filed an appeal [recurso de queja] against that decision to theFiscal Superior [higher-ranking public prosecutor] in December 2002, and that official decided to expand the complaint by adding the offense of abuse of authority, and to uphold the dismissal of the complaint of torture. 13. In response to the petition filed with the Huancayo Provincial Prosecutor’s Office, the Fifth Criminal Court of Huancayo initiated an investigation into the crime of serious injuries, and then expanded the charges to include abuse of authority. It even ordered the arrest of Juan Ilaquita Quispe, but this order was not executed. 14. At the same time, the Fifth Military Court of the Army’s Second Judicial Zone instituted proceedings for the crime of abuse of authority against Juan Ilaquita Quispe on the basis of the same acts, and requested the Fifth Criminal Court of Huancayo to stay its proceedings in this case, suggesting a positive conflict of jurisdiction which, under domestic legislation, must be resolved by the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. 15. The Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice issued a decision on May 12, 2003, in which it ruled on the conflict of venue in favor of the military court, on the grounds that the acts described constituted an offense in the course of duty [delito de función] 2