42 88(32) On January 19, 1996, Lori Berenson’s lawyer appealed this judgment before the Army’s Special Military Court.93 88(33) On January 30, 1996, the Army’s Special Military Court, whose members were unidentified, delivered judgment, in which it: Declare[d] inadmissible the objection on jurisdiction filed by the defense lawyer of Lori Helene BERENSON MEJIA [… and] confirm[ed][ the judgment handed down by the Army’s Special Military Judge [on January 11, 1996 ...] which sentence[d] Lori Helene BERENSON MEJIA to LIFE IMPRISONMENT, [...] as perpetrator of the crime of treason[.]94 88(34) On January 30, 1996, Lori Berenson’s lawyer filed an appeal for annulment of the judgment delivered by the Special Military Supreme Court that day.95 88(35) On March 4, 1996, the Deputy Special Prosecutor General issued his legal opinion on the appeal for annulment filed by Lori Berenson’s defense lawyer, and requested “[t]hat it should be declared that the Court’s judgment SENTENCING Lori Helene BERENSON MEJIA [...] to LIFE IMPRISONMENT SHOULD NOT BE ANNULLED.”96 88(36) On March 11, 1996, Lori Berenson’s defense lawyer submitted his written arguments, requesting, inter alia, that the objection on jurisdiction should be admitted, in favor of the ordinary jurisdiction, and that the all the preceding proceedings should be declared null “up until the stage at which the Prosecutor formulated the charge, in his capacity as person responsible for the criminal proceeding.”97 88(37) On March 12, 1996, the Special Military Supreme Court, whose members were unidentified, delivered a ruling in which it declared that there would be no annulment “of the decision of January 30, [1996], which confirm[ed] in part the firstinstance judgment of January 11, [1996], SENTENCING Lori Helene BERENSON MEJÍA […] to life imprisonment as the perpetrator of the crime of treason” (supra para. 88(30)).98 92 Cf. judgment handed down by the Special Military Judge on January 11, 1996 (file of appendixes to the application, tome 2, appendix 12, folio 524; and file of probative evidence provided by the State, tome 3, folio 489). 93 Cf. appeal brief prepared by the alleged victim’s defense lawyer and submitted to the Army’s Special Military Court on January 19, 1996 (file of probative evidence provided by the State, tome 3, folios 4880 to 4884). 94 Cf. judgment handed down by the Army’s Special Military Court on January 30, 1996 (file of appendixes to the application, tome 2, appendix 14, folios 530 to 542; and file of probative evidence provided by the State, tome 3, folios 4983 to 4995). 95 Cf. remedy of nullity against the judgment of the Army’s Special Military Court filed by the alleged victim’s defense lawyer before the Special Military Supreme Court on January 30, 1996 (file of probative evidence provided by the State, tome 3, folio 5009). 96 Cf. opinion of the Deputy Special Prosecutor General’s office of March 4, 1996 (file of probative evidence provided by the State, tome 4, folios 5080 to 5155). 97 Cf. brief with arguments in defense of the alleged victim submitted to the Army’s Special Military Supreme Court on March 11, 1996 (file of probative evidence provided by the State, tome 4, folio 5221 to 5231). 98 Cf. judgment handed down by the Army’s Special Military Supreme Court on March 12, 1996 (file of probative evidence provided by the State, tome 4, folio 5239 to 5253).