4 III. POSITION OF THE PARTIES A. The petitioners 15. The petitioners state that on November 14, 2000, Mr. Quispealaya, aged 23 at the time, went of his own will to the “December 9” Peruvian Army base in the city of Huancayo in order to enroll in the voluntary military service. They indicate that Mr. Quispealaya, having had a medical exam that demonstrated that he was in a good state of health, was assigned to the CID No. 31 in the city of Juaja for basic training. He purportedly stayed there until the end of December of 2000, and he was subsequently assigned to No. 31 Communications Company in the city of Huancayo. 16. They state that on the morning of January 23, 2001, members of his company went to the firing range at Azapampa for shooting practice. They indicate that noncommissioned officer Juan Hilaquita Quispe was in charge of the recruits’ practice, and that Mr. Quispealaya was included in that group. They claim that because Mr. Quispealaya committed many errors during the practice, noncommissioned officer Juan Hilaquita Quispe repeatedly insulted him and at one point grabbed the firearm (FAL) that he carried and hit him in the forehead and the right eye with the butt of the weapon. They affirm that other soldiers who were taking part in the shooting practice observed these events. They state that after this assault, Mr. Quispealaya went to the military unit’s medical center, where he was prescribed eye drops to treat the watering in his right eye. 17. They claim that because Mr. Quispealaya felt threatened and intimidated by his aggressor and feared possible reprisals, he waited until June of 2001, when he could no longer handle the strong headaches and pain in his right eye that he had been suffering, as well as the loss of his eyesight. He went to the clinic of the 31st Infantry Brigade to be examined by the surgeon, who recommended that he be transferred to the Central Military Hospital in Lima, where he received surgery on his right eye. The petitioners state that due to the advanced state of the injury, he lost vision in this eye. 18. In relation to the threats that the alleged victim received, they maintain that on February 4, 2002, after Mr. Quispealaya reported the alleged torture that he suffered to a public notary (noticiero), and as he was returning to his home, he found members of the Army waiting for him at the door of his house who rebuked for having reported his aggressor. They state that these events were reported to the Ombudsman [Defensoría del Pueblo] of Huancayo. Furthermore, the petitioners indicate that on November 29, 2002, Mr. Quispealaya’s mother requested a restraining order in her son’s name against the alleged aggressor in light of the constant threats received. They state that similarly, several witnesses of the purported assault on the alleged victim were also threatened: specifically, they report that on November 14, 2002, Edson Huayra Arancibia, a former soldier and witness of the events who had testified against the alleged aggressor during the criminal proceedings, was beaten by four unidentified individuals who appeared to be in the military, and that on December 4, 2002, the presumed aggressor, noncommissioned officer Juan Hilaquita Quispe, shot at him. They claim that these events were also reported to the Ombudsman of Huancayo. Criminal proceedings before the civil courts and proceeding before the military courts 19. The petitioners indicate that on February 28, 2002, the alleged victim’s mother, Victoria Vilcapoma Taquia, presented a complaint before the National Prosecutor’s Office which was assigned to the Tenth Provincial Prosecutor’s Office of the judicial district of Junín, province of Huancayo, and the