18 When questioned on whether military justice applies Article 169 of the Constitution, which establishes that the persons who are subject to the military justice system are those who occupy a military function, the witness responded that it depended on the circumstances and, as an example, quoted fraud, saying that in the case of a fraud committed within a military barracks there is a functional relationship. In particular, he asserted: [W]e are faced with the case of a person who enjoyed the complete confidence of the army and who had powers of decision on the financial resources of the barracks, which are State resources. So that, together with a member of the armed forces he took monies from the public purse for personal ends, breaking a series of administrative regulations. Hence, this was intimately linked to function. The crime of fraud… is contemplated in the ordinary Criminal Code, but it is also contemplated in the Code of Military Justice, and this is sacred for the military justice system and also for the administrative body, because the monies were for national defense purposes. The witness declared that the habeas corpus decided in favor of Gustavo Cesti Hurtado was not res judicata, since it did not apply to the military jurisdiction. When asked whether the military justice system can refuse to comply with habeas corpus decisions classed as res judicata, he replied that it depended on the circumstances, such as in the present case, in which this decision breached legal provisions and exceeded Article 361 of the Code of Military Justice, according to which the Supreme Court is the only body that may resolve conflicts of jurisdiction. The witness insisted that habeas corpus is not applicable under the military justice system because this system is based on judicial decisions and strictly ordinary proceedings EXPERT EVIDENCE 60. The report by the expert, Jorge Chávez Lobatón, was not contested during the proceedings and, therefore, the Court added it to the pool of evidence in this case. 61. In continuation, the Court summarizes the expert’s report: a. Report of Jorge Chávez Lobatón, Secretary General of the Supreme Council of Military Justice Jorge Chávez Lobatón was summoned by the Court, at the request of the State, to submit a report on the Organic Law of Military Justice, the Code of Military Justice and the exceptions that render military jurisdiction invalid. He is a lawyer by profession with the rank of Colonel in the Peruvian Air Force. He is currently Secretary General of the Supreme Council of Military Justice. With regard to the Organic Law of Military Justice, the expert referred to several of its 103 articles, as follows: i. Article 2 indicates that the Military Justice Tribunals are responsible for preserving order, morality and discipline within the armed forces; ii. Article 3 establishes that military justice is autonomous and that, in the exercise of its functions, its members do not depend on any administrative authority, but on higher-ranking judicial bodies;