5 b) without prejudice to that set forth in Articles 65 of the American Convention on Human Rights and 30 of the Statute of the Court, immediately proceed to inform the Secretary General of the OAS and the States Parties to said Convention of this matter. 5. The July 23, 1999 writing from Verónica Reyna and Nelson Caucoto, representatives of the victims in the Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case, in which they submitted their observations to the June 11, 1999 Order of the Plenary Court of the Supreme Council of Military Justice. In this regard, these persons stated that: a) the State did not understand the judgment, the scope of its relationship to the American Convention on Human Rights, or the role played by the Commission and the Court within the Inter-American system for the protection of human rights; b) the judgment of the Court conforms to the procedures set forth in the American Convention on Human Rights and its Statute; c) it is not possible to assert that in the case in question there was a trial in accordance with the rules provided for in the American Convention on Human Rights. It is a proven and unquestionable fact that those convicted did not enjoy the minimum judicial guarantees, and that they lacked a due and rational process; d) to take into account that the justice of Peru “is not independent and impartial is a fact of the case, adequately proved”; e) that set forth in Article 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights (Domestic Legal Effects) is a strict norm, which does not permit repudiation; f) in accordance with Article 33 of the American Convention on Human Rights it falls to the Commission and to the Court to hear matters concerning the fulfillment of obligations undertaken by the States Parties to this Convention. g) it can not be regarded that the Court acted with control of the legality, and even of the constitutionality of the domestic law. h) the American Convention on Human Rights does not set forth a prohibition to the existence of military justice in the subscribing States. It is “obvious that the actions and proceedings of this judicature or any other that exercises a jurisdictional function must abide by the principles embodied in the American Convention on Human Rights.” Consequently, the Court questions the “military judicature” for not conforming to that prescribed in the Convention and not its existence; i) not all means are permissible for a State to exercise its legitimate right to the defense of its integrity and society. To attack a wrong, one can not use another wrong as a cure; j) the Court, by means of its Judgment, expects a trial in accordance with the American Convention on Human Rights.