75 but ordinary felonies, and secondly, in the specific case of Vladimiro Montesinos, he was not a member of the military in active duty. The undue exercise of jurisdiction by the military courts in the prosecution of the perpetrators of the facts denounced was possible pursuant to applicable domestic legislation which established a wide scope of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction. In this sense, the above mentioned norms infringed Article 8(1) of the American Convention in relation to Articles 1(1) and (2) thereof; h) with the incorporation of amnesty laws to its legal system, and during the time when they were applied and had effects, the State violated the rights to a fair trial (Article 8(1)) and to judicial protection (Article 25), in relation to the duties of protection and guarantee (Article 1(1)) and the duty to adapt domestic legislation to conform to international standards (Article 2), to the detriment of the victims and their next of kin, and i) the State has violated the rights embodied in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, to the detriment of the victims and their next of kin, inasmuch as it failed to provide effective judicial remedies substantiated by competent, independent and impartial judges within a reasonable term and to adapt domestic provisions to conform to the principles of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, and, particularly, in view of the fact that it approved, applied and kept in force up to the present a norm (the Military Code of Justice) which does not clearly and accurately specify who may be tried by military courts. Arguments of the State 132. The State partially acquiesced to the alleged violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention (supra paras. 45, 46 and 53) and remarked, inter alia, that: a) b) c) d) it does neither deny the occurrence of the facts nor that they took place due to acts or omissions of State representatives (public authorities or officials), which incriminates the State. However, it explains the context in which the State responded to the impunity that prevailed until late 2000, when the State modified its behavior following the democratic transition and the reinstatement of the Rule of Law in the country; immediately after the fall of former President Alberto Fujimori, the State adopted concrete measures to reestablish fluent relations with the interAmerican protection system, strengthen the Rule of Law and avoid impunity for crimes against human rights and to the prejudice of public property; these specific facts and the reinstitutionalization of the country have enabled both the Attorney General´s Office and the Judiciary to restart the investigations and conduct proceedings, pursuant to the evidence gathered, to reverse the impunity that has prevailed for numerous and egregious human rights violations; the Transition Government created the Comisión de la Verdad (Truth Commission) in order to elucidate the processes, facts and responsibilities of terrorist violence and human rights violations perpetrated between May 1980 and November 2000, attributable both to terrorist organizations and State agents. This Commission issued a Final Report by late August 2003, which constitutes a step forward in the elucidation of the facts, the vindication of all