7 military operation; (iii) the legally protected interest is “discipline and the protection of life, the supreme aim of the State;” (iv) the acts were defined in the Code of Military Justice and were the result of a battle between commandos and a group of terrorists; and (v) they were acting in a zone declared to be in a “state of emergency.” 38. With regard to the petitioners’ allegations of pressures, the State reported that the Supreme Court settled the matter of jurisdiction pursuant to the powers vested in it and in different political circumstances than those which prevailed under the Fujimori government, and its independence and impartiality are therefore unquestionable. In relation to the alleged pressures brought to bear by the Executive Branch, the State contended that the political circumstances characterizing the transition government hardly point to the existence of pressure, “much less on a human rights issue.” 39. The State pointed out that its alleged international responsibility is based on testimonies and expert reports which must be examined at trial, which is the appropriate proceeding to arrive at a determination as to whether the deaths were indeed summary executions. 40. The State described the operational plans and the various chains of command. It pointed out that the National Intelligence System, through Vladimiro Montesinos, was in charge of supervision and implementation of the operational aspects. The State also discussed the jurisprudence related to the use of force. 41. In addition, Peru described the proceedings in the civilian court case in 2002 and in 2007 and referred to the extradition process against former President Fujimori. 42. The State claimed that the criminal case is proceeding in accordance with the procedural guidelines set out under the law and has not been abandoned or dismissed. In terms of the reasonable time period, it explained that there are no procedural regulations in effect to estimate the exact time frame from the beginning to the end of an oral trial. In regard to the interruption of the hearing, Peru claimed that under the law, the presiding court may extend the periods of suspension provided in the law when particular difficulties arise in substantiating the oral phase of the trial. IV. ANALYSIS OF THE MERITS A. Examination of the Evidence 3 43. Pursuant to Article 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure, the Commission will examine the facts and evidence supplied by the parties, as well as the information obtained during the hearing held at its 122nd Regular Session. In addition, the IACHR will take into account other information that is a matter of public knowledge, including the resolutions of United Nations human rights committees, reports by the IACHR and by the internal entities established by the Peruvian State, the Final Report of the Truth and 4 Reconciliation Commission (hereinafter “the TRC”), reports from Peruvian and international nongovernmental organizations, laws, decrees, and other normative instruments. 3 Article 43.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR states as follows: “The Commission shall deliberate on the merits of the case, to which end it shall prepare a report in which it will examine the arguments, the evidence presented by the parties, and the information obtained during hearings and on-site observations. In addition, the Commission may take into account other information that is a matter of public knowledge.” As it has done in other reports, the IACHR will take into account in particular reports prepared by the United Nations and the reports of the Commission itself. 2.66. EXTRAJUDICIAL EXECUTIONS IN THE RESIDENCE OF THE AMBASSADOR OF JAPAN (1997), TRC, http://www.cverdad.org.pe/ifinal/pdf/TOMO%20VII/Casos%20Ilustrativos-UIE/2.66.%20%20ENABJADA%20JAPON.pdf. 4 The Final Report of the TRC has been used by the Commission in several previous reports, as well as by the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights in determining the facts and the international responsibility of the Peruvian State in the following matters: Case of Anzualdo Castro v Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C, No. 202; Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v Peru, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C, No. 167; Case of La Cantuta, Judgment of November 29, 2006, Series C, No. 162; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C, No. 160; Case of Baldeón García, Judgment of April 6, Continues…