16. She indicates in this respect that Mr. Rosadío Villavicencio filed a motion for nullity against the guilty verdict. The Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice ruled on the motion declaring “there not being [nullity] in the judgment in terms of the verdict, and there being nullity in the penalty imposed and the reparation established.” In addition, the Supreme Court increased the prison sentence from six to 15 years, and the payment of the civil reparation, without setting forth any justification whatsoever. Accordingly, petitioner alleges that this ruling violates the right to a fair trial enshrined in Article 8 of the American Convention. 17. Petitioner also asserts that the State violated the principle of legality enshrined in Article 9 of the Convention, on administratively sanctioning Mr. Jorge Rosadío Villavicencio while also convicting him in the military court and the regular criminal court, even though he is exempt from criminal liability under Peru’s domestic legislation, and considering the circumstances of the case. For this reason, she alleges that the deprivation of liberty suffered by the victim is arbitrary, in violation of Article 7 of the Convention, and consequently in violation of Article 11 of the same treaty as well, as his good name has been tarnished. 18. With respect to the issues of admissibility, petitioner states in consideration of all the foregoing that she is not seeking to have the Commission act as a court of review in this case; rather, she seeks its pronouncement with respect to the State’s responsibility for the violation of human rights enshrined in the American Convention through its judicial organs. In relation to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, she alleges that all pertinent remedies have been pursued. 19. Finally, the petitioner has reported that the alleged victim is currently free, under an obligation to justify his activities at the end of each month, reporting to the judicial authority designated for this purpose. to six years in prison and the payment of civil reparations to the State. The petitioner indicates that the judgment was based exclusively on the testimony of the superior, and that the declaration according to which the objection of nature of the act was unfounded, was not explained or justified. 5