61 they would have held if they had continued their military careers, including all the benefits and honors pertaining to that rank in retirement. 240. The Inter-American Defenders pled on behalf of Mr. Giordano, Mr. Tomasek, Mr. Mercau, Mr. Morón, Mr. Cardozo, Mr. López Mattheus, Mr. Allendes, Mr. Marcial, Mr. Muñoz and Mr. Argüelles, asking that the judicial proceedings lodged against them be overturned, and arguing that the process was a consequence of violation of the guarantees of due process enshrined in article 8 of the American Convention, in view of the fact that trials of military personnel before military courts for crimes committed in peace time are not consistent with international human rights standards, as they do not meet the requirements of independence and impartiality. They also asked that the applicants be moved into retirement at the military rank corresponding to each one by virtue of the regular promotions and assignments they would have received if the violation resulting from their detention had not occurred. 241. The State, in turn, denied that the applicants were entitled to the measures of restitution as requested because “the applicants themselves did not deny, but instead recognized, their participation in the commission of the offenses for which they were tried.” It also held that “domestic legislation provides for reinstatement of military rank only if it is proven that the conviction was handed down based on error.” According to the State, this was not the case of the applicants, and it therefore argued that such a claim was inadmissible. 242. The State added, in its final written pleadings, that the overturning of the criminal proceedings lodged against the applicants was out of order because “the inter-American contentious jurisdiction […] is not a fourth-tier court of appeals for judicial decisions delivered by domestic judicial bodies, but rather an international judicial institution that judges state responsibilities regardless of which branch of government took the actions addressed by the case.” 243. The State also made reference to the request to reinstate the alleged victims into the armed forces with a promotion of two ranks and status of withdrawal from active service, protesting that this was inadmissible because the applicants’ loss of military status was the result of their own criminal actions, tried and convicted by both military and general courts. Therefore, reinstatement of military rank as requested would be tantamount to overlooking the effects of a final, unappealable judgment that has not been challenged in this case; similarly, it would suggest a rehabilitation that the applicants never performed under the terms of article 20 of the Argentine Criminal Code. 244. The State also argued that the loss of military status was a legitimate restriction or ruling derived from criminal conviction. The loss of military rank cannot be held, therefore, as an arbitrary, disproportionate or unlawful restriction. 245. The State in its final pleadings also addressed the restoration of civil and political rights requested by the representatives, noting that it was not clear exactly which civil rights the applicants had been unable to enjoy, as it would appear that their grievance referred partially to rights affected by the criminal sentence of disqualification; the State also recalled that none of applicants had impugned the sentence as a breach of the principle of freedom from ex post facto laws in article 9, or of articles 5(2), 5(3) or 30 of the Convention during the proceedings before the inter-American system. It stated, with respect to political rights, that this restriction pertained exclusively to the effects of the sentence of full and permanent disqualification handed down in the judgment on the criminal trial, and the grounds of this restriction were considered allowable under article 23(2) of the Convention.