Special Criminal Chamber issued an order on March 30, 2009, in compliance with the decision of the Sixth Special Criminal Chamber, to widen the order to open investigation to include Manuel Tullume Gonzáles and issued a warrant of house arrest against him. 303 244. The Third Specialized Prosecutor for Crimes of Corruption by Public Officials found on October 5, 2011 that there were grounds for bringing Alberto Fujimori Fujimori and Manuel Tullume Gonzáles to trial.304 The Fourth Chamber for Criminal Prosecution found on November 15, 2011 that there were grounds for bringing the accused to trial, issued an order to set the opening date on December 12, 2011, and provisionally suspended the trial for the accused Fujimori Fujimori until the request for extradition could be settled. 305 245. No information or documentation has been submitted to clarify the current status of this process. IX THE RIGHT TO LIFE, READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE RIGHTS 246. The Court will proceed in this chapter to analyze the alleged violation of the right to life in injury of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez, Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva and Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza, bearing in mind the following contextual factors surrounding this case: the presence of a non-international armed conflict, a situation in which force was used against the members of the MRTA as part of a hostage rescue operation, and the fact that the alleged victims were not civilians, but members of the MRTA, who had taken an active part in the hostilities. The Court will first summarize the arguments of the parties and the Commission and will clarify the cause of action that it is called upon to adjudicate. The Court will also discuss general principles concerning the duties to respect and guarantee the right to life and principles applicable to the use of force by agents of the state in such a setting as this, and then proceed to address the specific circumstances in which each death took place so as to determine whether this is a case of international State responsibility for the alleged violation of the right to life in injury of these persons. A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 247. The Commission “recognize[d] that the operations served the legitimate purpose of protecting hostages whose lives and personal integrity had been exposed to constant danger.” It therefore did not challenge the legitimacy of the operation as a mechanism to rescue the hostages or its successful outcome in meeting that objective. Based on its review of the available evidence, however, the Commission framed a legal definition of the deaths of MRTA members Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez, Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva and Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza as extrajudicial executions, thus arbitrary violation of the right to life, because these deaths had occurred “in circumstances under which it can be affirmed that they had been removed from combat, and therefore their lives were protected by Article 4 of the American Convention, interpreted in light of the standards of international humanitarian law that set minimum guarantees for persons hors de combat.” Cf. Judicial notification of the ruling by the Third Special Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima, March 30, 2009 (evidence file, volume VIII, annex 15 to the pleadings, motions and evidence brief, folios 5564 to 5566). 303 Cf. Opinion of the Third Specialized Prosecutor for Crimes of Corruption by Public Officials, October 5, 2011 (evidence file, volume VIII, annex 16 to the pleadings, motions and evidence brief, folios 5567 to 5605). 304 Cf. Ruling by the Fourth Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima, November 15, 2011 (evidence file, volume VIII, annex 18 to the pleadings, motions and evidence brief, folios 5610 to 5618). 305