40 masterminds of the events. Several days later, the military justice system opened its own investigation of all of the commandos involved in the Operation. At the request of the military justice system, the Supreme Court of Justice ruled on the jurisdictional challenge, holding that the military personnel that formed part of the commando should be tried by the military justice system, and the others in the civilian courts.  Regarding the jurisdictional challenge 181. The IACHR observes that the Supreme Court of Justice based its reasoning on the fact that the events took place in a “clear military battle” and therefore the commandos acted in a military operation in a state of emergency, pursuant to an order issued on constitutional grounds and therefore any “infractions of a criminal nature” or “punishable excesses” that may have been committed must be aired in the military courts. It also held that the criminal charges brought in the regular court system against defendants Montesinos Torres, Nicolás de Bari Hermosa Ríos, Roberto Huamán Ascurra and Jesús Zamudio Aliaga, persons not directly involved in the military operation, “would constitute a case of a Human Rights Violation defined as a Crime against Humanity…insofar as they all derive from the same criminal intent.” In other words, in the view of the Supreme Court of Justice, the events being tried could constitute human rights violations, including those defined as crimes against humanity. This notwithstanding, because it deemed the acts committed by the commandos to be duty-related crimes, it remanded them to the military jurisdiction. 182. On this point, it should be noted that the TRC stated that this decision “constituted an unfortunate setback in the Peruvian justice system from the standpoint of effective, impartial and transparent investigation of conducts that violate the fundamental rights of persons.”  Regarding the process in the military jurisdiction 183. The IACHR recalls that in cases such as the one under study, where deaths have occurred at the hands of state agents, it is particularly important that the authorities not only preserve the evidence for an investigation, but also that they “be independent, both de jure and de facto, from the 185 officials involved in the facts of the case.” In other words, when State officials have used force, in order for an investigation is to be effective, the persons responsible for carrying out that investigation must be 186 hierarchically and institutionally independent of those who may be implicated in the death, which 187 definitively implies that their independence must be real. 184. Similarly, the Commission reiterates that when state agents use lethal force, as in the instant case, the State must conduct an independent and impartial investigation to establish whether that use of force adhered to the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality. 185. In this regard, the IACHR observes that according to the Supreme Court, the intervention by military commandos during the operation occurred in the context of a zone declared to be in a state of emergency, and therefore they were subject to the Code of Military Justice “and any infractions they may commit in the discharge of their duties as set out in that Code fall under Military Jurisdiction [Fuero Privativo Militar].” For its part, the military justice system held that because they occurred in the framework of a state of emergency, 185 Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Zambrano Vélez et al v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 122. 186 European Court of Human Rights, Case of Slimani v. France, Application no. 57671/00, Judgment of 27 July, 2004, para. 32; Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Durand and Ugarte v. Peru. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, paras. 125 and 126; Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Montero Aranguren et al (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, para. 81. 187 Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Zambrano Vélez et al v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 122.