8 regard, meaning that the acts for which the Commission declared the petition admissible are no longer relevant and that the State’s international responsibility cannot be required. 35. The State claimed that the Constitutional Tribunal issued a judgment on December 15, 2006 establishing that Military-Police Justice lacks jurisdiction over common crimes contained in the Criminal Code. Specifically in relation to the crime of abuse of authority, it held that “Article 179 of the Code of Military Police Justice, dealing with the crime of abuse of authority, is contained in the new Code of Military Police Justice under the title Excess in the Exercise of Command, described in the first section of Article 139, having been declared unconstitutional by the Plenary of the Constitutional Tribunal in its judgment of December 15. 2006, for which these acts no longer constitute crimes in the course of duty, and they can be subject to investigation by the civil courts.” They indicate that the Constitutional Tribunal specified that in relation to the military offense of excesses in the exercise of command that “these criminal norms seek to sanction the conduct of an (active-duty) soldier or policeman who, in the exercise of his function . . . exceeds the scope of his authority . . . causing PHYSICAL INJURIES or DEATH, affecting the legal interests of PHYSICAL INTEGRITY AND LIFE (which are not institutional legal interests that are unique and particular to the Armed Forces or National Police). Consequently, taking into consideration that the aforementioned criminal norms do not include the basic characteristics of crimes in the course of duty, as required by Article 173 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Tribunal considers that they are unconstitutional.” 36. Concretely, the State claims that it is adopting all efforts in order to adapt the offenses committed during the exercise of military activities, and specifically those that do not affect the unique legal interests of military institutions, to the principles contained in the Constitution and in the American Convention. It states that in the year 2008 a Special Commission of the Congress of the Republic was charged with preparing and promulgating a new Code of Military-Police Justice. 37. The State reports that in the present case, by means of communication No. 161 S-CSJIM of May 30, 2007, the Secretary General of the Supreme Council of Military Justice related that by resolution of March 24, 2007, the Permanent Military Court of Huancayo resolved to elevate the proceedings to the War Council of the Second Judicial Zone of the Army in order to close the case and notify the facts of the case to the Attorney General of Huancayo for it to take action. The State indicated that on August 16, 2007, the Permanent War Council of the Second Judicial Area of the Army issued a resolution overturning the previous decision and ordering that a certified copy of the pertinent procedural elements of the case be sent to the Attorney General’s Office so that it could proceed in accordance with its jurisdiction. 38. The State claims that the Attorney General’s Office issued a notice on November 29, 2007 in which it Reportd the National Human Rights Council that the instant case originated in the civilian courts and that the First Prosecutor of the Criminal Province of Huancayo resolved to open a preliminary investigation for the alleged commission of an offense against life, body and health, characterized as serious injuries, and that it had ordered the realization of various procedural steps. 39. Subsequently, the State reported that on October 17, 2008, the criminal complaint was finally closed, given that it was not possible to notify Mr. Valdemir Quispealaya to give a statement as his whereabouts were unknown. Furthermore, it was necessary to establish the period of disability and the medical attention that he required, for which the medical-legal certificate was needed, and none existed at the moment when the events occurred. The State alleges that if the alleged victim had not agreed with this resolution, he could have filed a motion for appeal [recurso de queja] to the Provincial