7 29. The petitioners claim that the State violated Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention in relation with Article 1(1) of this treaty and Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, to the detriment of Valdemir Quispealaya Vilcapoma, since the Supreme Court of the Republic settled the dispute over jurisdiction in favor of the military courts. In this sense, they indicate that the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court establishes that in a democratic State governed by law, military jurisdiction should have a restrictive and exceptional application and be directed toward protecting the special legal interests related to the aspects of law assigned to the military forces. They claim that in the present case, the State has violated the standard set by the Inter-American Court in the Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile with respect to the right to be tried by a competent, independent and impartial judge or court. 30. The petitioners state that the Ombudsman has already pronounced on the legal interests affected in the case of Valdemir Quispealaya, concluding that the assault on a soldier and the harm to his physical integrity have no relation to the institutional goals that correspond to the Armed Forces according to Article 165, and that the Code of Military Justice does not include the crime of serious injuries. 31. The petitioners indicate that the State did not initiate an investigation ex oficio for the torture committed against the alleged victim, but that the claim instead originated in a complaint filed by the party. They add that it was not carried out with due diligence and was inefficient, since the party responsible for the crime was neither investigated nor punished. They state that furthermore, the State did not provide the victim with reparations that were proportionate to the seriousness of the lasting effects of the torture that he suffered. 32. The petitioners claim that the investigations were not carried out with due diligence because the judicial authorities did not apply the “Protocol of Medical-legal Recognition for the Detection of Injuries or Death as the Result of Torture,” which was in force at the moment of the events. This includes physical and mental examinations, auxiliary examinations, and several sessions of treatment, concluding with a detailed and in depth report on the injuries that the victim presents. They claim that the Protocol of Istanbul was similarly not applied. 33. Finally, the petitioners request that in the present case the IACHR grant the following measures of reparation: a) training for members of the Peruvian Armed Forces that are in charge of training recruits who perform voluntary military service, particularly regarding the use of force and the application of disciplinary measures that respect human rights; b) design of a “Manual of disciplinary measures of the Armed Forces” which stipulates the disciplinary measures that are permitted; c) training for prosecutors and judges regarding the crime of torture and its difference from the crime of injuries; d) implementation of the Protocol of Istanbul; and e) measures of full reparation commensurate to the serious physical and psychological effects of the torture committed against Valdemir Quispealaya Vilcapoma, as well as that suffered by his family, who have supported him during the domestic proceedings; f) a judicial investigation of those responsible for the torture committed against Mr. Quispealaya. B. The State 34. The State alleged that when the IACHR issued its Admissibility Report, there was a proceeding before the military courts for the alleged facts, and that reparations have been made in this