25. The petitioners reported that the September 2002 issue (417) of the publication "Actualidad Militar", put out by the Army’s Information Office, flatly defended the commandos and stated that common sense had prevailed when the Supreme Court decided the jurisdictional challenge in favor of the military courts, as the commandos’ actions would now be judged in the context of wartime. 26. In October 2002, Prosecutor Richard Saavedra Luján, who had been subjected to pressure and threatened with investigation because of his conduct of this case, was removed without cause by the National Judiciary Council. There was nothing in the prosecutor’s record to suggest that he had ever been sanctioned or investigated for misconduct. 27. In reply to the Peruvian State’s response, the petitioners stated that the Supreme Court’s August 16, 2002 ruling, to divide the case in two and hand over the authors of the extrajudicial executions to the jurisdiction of the military courts, is the reason why they filed a complaint with the Inter-American Commission, as Supreme Court rulings are final and not subject to any kind of appeal. 28. They emphasized that the military courts do not have jurisdiction to investigate violations of human rights like extrajudicial execution, since under its own Code of Military Justice, they only have jurisdiction to take up cases that meet three basic criteria: The active subject is a member of the military or police; the conduct or action is related to the military function, and the passive subject is a member of the police or military. Inasmuch as the conduct must be service related, i.e., associated with the purpose, organization and functions of the armed forces, the present case cannot be classified as a service-related crime. 29. The petitioners reiterated that military courts are not competent, independent and impartial bodies, since under the Organic Law of Military Justice –Decree-Law No. 23,201- they are answerable to the Ministry of Defense. Military jurisdiction is therefore subordinate to an arm of the executive branch of government, as it is the Minister of Defense who appoints military court judges. The latter are members of the armed forces. 30. The petitioners’ contention was that the proceedings in the military court system cannot be an effective recourse for the protection of the rights of the victims and their next of kin and for reparation of the damages caused. The military system of criminal justice claimed jurisdiction over the case to protect those involved; hence, the military court proceedings do not afford the minimum guarantees of independence and impartiality required under Article 8(1) of the Convention. 31. The very same day Prosecutor Saavedra filed formal charges in civilian court against the military on May 24, 2002, Prosecutor Juan Pablo Ramos Espinoza filed a complaint against all the commandos involved in the operation, but not Vladimiro Montesinos, Nicolás Hermoza Ríos, Roberto Huaman Ascurra and Jesús Zamudio Aliaga. On May 28, 2002, this complaint made its way through all the various levels of the military justice system in order to open the criminal case before the civilian court ruled on the complaint brought by the Office of the Special Prosecutor. The Office of the Military Prosecutor issued its finding that same day, at 2:00 p.m. The case went to Brigade General Rodríguez Colchado, President of the Courtmartial, who immediately issued his ruling and sent the case to the Office of the Prosecutor for the Court-martial for its ruling. At 3:30 p.m., that Office issued an opinion to the effect that the military courts had jurisdiction to hear the case. At 4:30 p.m., the court record was delivered to the Inspector General, who hastily gave his opinion and referred the case to the Office of the President of the Court-martial. Before the close of working hours that day, that Office had instituted proceedings against the officers charged in the civilian courts, and the more than one hundred commandos who participated in the operation. 32. On another point, the petitioners noted that the information the State supplied to the effect that proceedings against Nestor Cerpa Cartolini and others for the crime of treason 5