339. The Court cautions that, unlike the situation confirmed for the case of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez, the sequence of events surrounding the deaths of Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva and Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza unfolded at the same time the operation was taking place, when it had not yet finished and the hostages were still being evacuated. 340. The evidence available to the Court is neither ample nor diverse enough to demonstrate consistently that Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva and Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza had ceased to take part in hostilities at the time they died, which would have qualified them as being hors de combat. The only evidence brought before it is the testimony of former hostage Hidetaka Ogura, who said that the two had already been neutralized. In this particular case, therefore, it has not been shown that Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva and Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza died after having surrendered or laid down their weapons. The Court agrees that the number of bullets found in their bodies could also be due to the fact that several different people, according to their own statements, had fired at the same time. 341. The Peruvian judicial authorities drew the same conclusion when they held that the two “died in combat” (supra paras. 222, 337 and 338). The Transitory Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court delivered its decision on July 24, 2013 ruling on the motions to vacate, and held: [T]he number of gunshots that the fallen MRTA members received from the commandos reveals that it was a case of crossfire[…]: the many wounds on different parts of the body and the varied trajectories are commonly observed in clashes of armed groups, using either single-shot firearms or multiple-shot weapons ( crossfire).421 342. The Court finds no grounds in this context to draw a conclusion different from that developed in the domestic jurisdiction, that Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva and Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza died while they were still taking part in the hostilities. Combined with this, because the Japanese hostages were still being evacuated, the two unquestionably could have posed a threat to the life and safety of the hostages. Therefore, based on its overall analysis of the evidence brought before it and outlined above, the Court deems that, in the instant case, it does not have sufficient evidence to hold that the State’s actions regarding Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva and Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza constituted arbitrary deprivation of life due to the use of lethal weapons in a way that was contrary to the applicable principles of international humanitarian law (supra paras. 276 to 278). 343. The Court therefore concludes that there are insufficient grounds in this international process to find the State internationally responsible for violating Article 4(1) of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, in injury of Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva and Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza. X RIGHT TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND RIGHT TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION, READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE RIGHTS AND THE OBLIGATION TO ADOPT DOMESTIC LEGAL EFFECTS 344. The Court would recount the following information about the facts in the instant case: (1) an investigation was initiated in 2001 when complaints were lodged, which led to the opening of a criminal trial in the ordinary courts; (2) an ensuing jurisdictional dispute was Ruling by the Transitory Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court on an appeal to vacate judgment, 35212012 July 24, 2013 (evidence file, volume XXI, helpful evidence, folio 14696). 421