3 appearance, in the role of witnesses, of the members of DINCOTE who participated in his arrest and who wrote up the police affidavit that charged him with the crime of aggravated terrorism in the form of treason against the fatherland and which subsequently served as the basis upon which to convict him of the crime of terrorism (pg. 44). h. That the three judgments that convicted Luis Alberto CantoralBenavides in the military jurisdiction and "the fourth judgment rendered by the civilian jurisdiction" (the Commission is referring to the first conviction rendered in the proceeding that took place before this final jurisdiction) lack a rational basis and ignore the fundamental arguments of the defense (pg. 43). i. That he was not released despite having been absolved of one of the judgments in the military court, because of the mistake of the judge charged with the execution of the judgment, who released his twin brother Luis Fernando Cantoral-Benavides in his stead. j. That Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides was judged and absolved of the facts specified in the sworn police affidavit of DINCOTE by the exclusive military jurisdiction and subsequently was judged and sentenced in the regular jurisdiction to twenty years in prison based on the same facts (pgs. 47, 48, 52, 53, and 54). The accusations made in the application of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights against the Peruvian State for the proceedings of the State against Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides, and, in particular, for the criminal trials to which he was subjected, have, as is clear from the aforementioned, a broad basis. There is practically no aspect of those proceedings that has not been the subject of criticism and censure. The State responded by vigorously defending itself against the Inter-American Commission’s charges of alleged violations of due process. It did so before the Commission itself (application to the Inter-American Court, pgs. 12 and 13) and also before the Court. In its brief in answer to the application, the State particularly set forth factual and legal reasons in defense of the legality of the arrest of Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides (pgs. 22 to 24) and his prosecution in the military courts for the crime of treason against the fatherland (pgs 26 to 30). It also employed that type of reasoning to maintain that Cantoral-Benavides was tried by an independent court (pgs. 30 to 34) that he was given guarantees of the presumption of innocence (pgs. 34 to 41) and the right of a defense (pgs. 42 to 46), and that in general his right to legal due process was respected (pgs 46 and 47). The State also refuted the assertions of the Commission as to alleged torture and other illegal treatment (pgs. 24 to 26). From all of the above it arises, quite clearly, that the question of due process is at the very center of this contentious case. In more specific terms, I should emphasize the following: a. The very proceedings which would constitute "remedies of the domestic jurisdiction" for the purpose of this case, are being questioned in the application, and at the same time are being defended by the respondent. b. There is disagreement between the parties as to the conformity of all the judgments that can be understood to be "final judgments" or "judgments