Zapata and for the official personnel who participated in the release and rescue of the hostages. Aprista Congressmen also introduced a bill seeking amnesty for the armed forces officers who participated in the release of the hostages held at the residence of the Japanese Ambassador. The legal argument underlying both bills was that the facts attributed to the military were not common crimes and were related to political phenomena. Later, the Minister of Defense told the media that members of the SIN had infiltrated the rescue operation at the residence of the Japanese Ambassador “Chavín de Huántar”, and had acted as “buzzards” to execute any surviving subversives; he argued that the investigations should center around those members of the National Intelligence Service. 19. The petitioners pointed out that despite these pressures, the Attorney General’s Office filed charges against 19 people, among them the commandos who the investigation revealed had participated in the execution of Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva "Melisa" and David Peceros Pedraza. Also charged were the officers who, based on the military’s own structure and hierarchy, must have known of these captures. The Third Examining Judge ordered trial proceedings to begin, issuing subpoenas to the commandos and ordering the preventive detention of Jesús Zamudio Aliaga. 20. The petitioners stated that for its part, on May 28, 2002, military justice began legal proceedings against 140 commandos who took part in the Chavín de Huántar operation, charging them with abuse of authority and violation of international law. The preliminary inquiry did not include Vladimiro Montesinos Torres, Nicolás Hermosa Ríos, Jesús Zamudio Aliaga and Roberto Huaman Ascurra, echoing the suggestion put forward by the Minister of Defense. Thus began the legal challenge over jurisdiction. 21. On June 7, 2002, at the ceremony organized by the army to commemorate loyalty to the National Flag, the commandos were honored and decorated, including those whom the judicial branch had under investigation for alleged involvement in the extrajudicial executions. On July 29, 2002, the Commando Chavín de Huántar was selected to lead the military parade celebrating independence. This was done to exert more pressure on the Supreme Court justices who had to decide the jurisdiction question raised by the military court, all in order to make certain that it would be the military court that investigated the extrajudicial executions. 22. On August 16, 2002, the Supreme Court convened to hear the oral arguments of the parties to the jurisdictional challenge brought by the military tribunal. The military prosecutor heading up the parallel inquiry being conducted in the military court and who had to bring the charges and prove them, was the person arguing the military’s challenge. However, in his oral arguments he made a defense for the commandos, stating that “heroes must not be treated like villains.” 23. In its August 16, 2002 ruling, the Supreme Court held that the military court system had jurisdiction over the 19 commandos, thus declining jurisdiction in favor of the military tribunal. It held that the events had occurred in a district that at the time was under a state of emergency, and were part of a military operation conducted on orders from above. It further held that any crimes that the 19 commandos may have committed were the jurisdiction of the military courts. It also ruled that the civilian criminal courts should retain jurisdiction over anyone else, other than the commandos, who may have violated civilian laws. 24. These arguments had the effect of removing certain agents from the jurisdiction of the military courts, so that they could continue to be investigated in the civilian court system: Vladimiro Montesinos Torres, Roberto Huaman Ascurra, Nicolas Hermosa Ríos and Jesús Zamudio Aliaga, who had a direct hand in the execution of Eduardo Cruz Sánchez and gave the order to execute Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva and Víctor Peceros Pedraza. But the commandos who carried out the orders and the military chiefs who transmitted the orders were investigated by the very same Military Prosecutor who portrayed them as heroes in his arguments before the Supreme Court. In the end they were tried by military judges appointed by the Ministry of Defense. 4