8 42. With regard to admissibility requirements, the petitioners Stated in 1992 that the instant case qualified for the exception provided in Article 46 of the American Convention as it concerned widespread violations in which it was inconceivable to consider the remedies under domestic jurisdiction to be effective. 43. The petitioners argue that access to the ordinary jurisdiction or regular courts is a basic guarantee of justice administration recognized in the Peruvian Constitution and in Articles 8(1) and 25(2)(a) of the American Convention. They say that Article 233(1) of the Constitution recognizes the “unity and exclusivity of the jurisdictional function” as a guarantee of administration of justice in the country. They say that, under this constitutional precept, the possibility of another authority passing decisions on matters of law can only occur in extremely exceptional circumstances. They note that Article 282 of the Constitution provides that “offenses committed in the line of duty by members of the armed forces and the police shall be submitted to the appropriate jurisdiction and the Military Code of Justice...” They hold that Article 10 of Law 24150, which sets out the standards to be observed in States of emergency, provides that “... [o]ffenses classified in the Military Code of Justice committed by members of the armed forces and the police in the line of duty are exclusively under military jurisdiction except where they are not connected with the service.” In this regard, the petitioners argue that in the instant case, the attacks perpetrated, which were notable for their great cruelty and malice aforethought, and followed by an attempt to conceal the crime by dynamiting the corpses, constitute crimes against humanity that cannot be regarded as acts committed in the line of duty or abuse of authority. 44. The petitioners further argue that the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts in these cases is also recognized by international human rights law and they cite, in that connection, Article 25(1) of the American Convention and the Syracusa Principles (1984), which provide: "The ordinary courts shall maintain their jurisdiction, even in a time of public emergency, to adjudicate any complaint that a non-derogable right has been violated.” 45. In November 1997, the petitioners informed the Commission that on January 14, 1997, the Supreme Court of Justice had applied Amnesty Law 26479 in favor of the accused Javier Bendezú Vargas and the other military personnel who were being prosecuted in the ordinary jurisdiction, as a result of which the serious crimes committed had remained in impunity. 46. Subsequently, in 2010, the petitioners Stated that on March 10, 2006, the judiciary, after vacating the decision by which Amnesty Law 26479 was applied in the instant case, ordered the trial of the six men accused of the Santa Barbara massacre to be suspended until they were in custody. They note that on December 18, 2006, the judiciary approved the closure of the case in favor of Carlos Manuel Pedro Chinchay on the grounds that he was a minor at the time of the events. 47. The petitioners report that on December 6, 2007, the trial began of Oscar Alberto Carrera Gonzáles following his capture, and that on March 4, 2008, he was sentenced in court to 12 years’ imprisonment for the crime of extortion but acquitted of the crime of genocide; it was also determined that the statute of limitations as regards criminal action for the crimes of damages and larceny had run. They say that the judgment also ordered certified copies of the case file to be sent to the Huancavelica Prosecutor’s Office in order to investigate Simón Fidel Breña Palante, a member of the so-called Escorpio patrol who took part in Operation Apolonia and who was named by the military personnel who testified in the trial as the person who fired the shots that killed the victims. They say that this judgment was appealed by the prosecutor's office, the convicted man's defense, and the relatives of the victims. 48. The petitioners say that in 2009, the Supreme Court approved the limitation on criminal action for larceny and damages, vacated the judgment of March 4, 2008, and ordered a retrial. As a result, they say that on June 15, 2010, the start of the trial of Oscar Alberto Carrera Gonzáles for genocide was scheduled for July (Case file No. 42-2006). The petitioners mention that, as yet, the other accused have not been apprehended despite the fact that there are outstanding national and international warrants for their arrest, and that some of them, such as Duilio Chipana Tarqui and Fidel Gino Eusebio Huaytalla, are in active military service, according to information provided by the Provostship of the Peruvian Army to the judiciary in official letter 3575/A/5/b of December 19,