77 l) m) n) o) Fujimori and the preliminary investigation of the instigators started by the Attorney General´s Office, involving two high-ranking members of the Peruvian Army and the main presidential advisor at the time of the events, seek to include all those that could be responsible for the facts at La Cantuta and are not circumscribed or restricted merely to the material perpetrators of the facts. In the preliminary investigation of the Attorney General´s Office, the acquittal granted by a military court has no legal effects, that is to say, it is not to be considered a res judicata case; it will receive and abide by the Court's decision concerning the investigation, identification and punishment of those responsible for issuing orders to commit international crimes such as the ones constituting the subject of the instant case. Thus, the duty to investigate and punish will rely on clearer criteria than those currently available to the national legal system to comply with this constitutional duty arising from an international source; there is an additional element in the quest for justice. The legal status of former president Alberto Fujimori must be elucidated by a third-party State, despite the efforts and will of Perú. Undoubtedly, this fact seriously hinders the full assumption of the duty to investigate the facts and punish all those responsible; the Constitutional Court of Perú, in the judgments on cases against two people involved in the facts, has issued guiding criteria for the whole judicial apparatus, explaining that a decision rendered by a Military Court has no res judicata effect, inasmuch as said court has no competence to investigate and punish human rights violations. These are recent decisions of the Constitutional Court which allow justice operators to review the decisions they may have adopted so far and which may not conform to law, to the Political Constitution, the American Convention and the jurisprudence of the Court, and regarding amnesty laws, State operators, based on the judgment in the Barrios Altos case, have begun to adopt measures, within their jurisdictions, intended to rid the national legal system of said laws, which has made it possible that the instant case, among others, be made public in Perú, which proves that this obstacle no longer exists. Considerations of the Court 133. Article 8(1) of the American Convention establishes that: Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 134. Article 25 of the Convention provides that: 1. Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 2. The States Parties undertake: