21 With regard to Article 12 of the Law on Military Status, which establishes that officers on active duty and in reserve are subject to the terms of the Code of Military Justice and to the Investigation Councils, the expert declared that this is clearly an administrative law because it regulates the administrative status of an officer. “[I]n the chapter relating to retired officers… it does not say that military justice does not apply to a retired officer”. Regarding petitions for a writ of habeas corpus, these are not admissible against a judicial decision resulting from an ordinary proceeding. Moreover, according to Article 16 of the Law of Habeas Corpus, this action is not in order during pre-trial proceedings against the petitioner or when the latter has been brought to trial for the facts that originate the habeas corpus petition. To the question of whether the military authority may fail to consider and apply a judgment pronounced by the Judiciary, the expert answered that Article 3 of the Organic Law of Military Justice establishes that military justice is autonomous and independent, because it is constitutional justice, contemplated in the Constitution. Lastly, the expert declared that he had been able to examine the proceedings of the jurisdictional disputes that were forwarded to the Court by the Peruvian State, and he stated that the procedure used in these proceedings is not the appropriate one for filing jurisdictional disputes, since these should be filed before the judge who considers that he has jurisdiction, not before the military justice system, saying that the latter is not the competent jurisdiction. * * * 62. In its decision on preliminary objections, the Court resolved that it would duly integrate the reports of the experts, Samuel Abad Yupanqui and Valentín Paniagua Corazao (supra 55), on the issue of the exhaustion of domestic remedies, into the pool of evidence. In continuation, the Court summarizes these reports: a. Report of the expert, Samuel Abad Yupanqui, Professor of Constitutional Law at the Catholic University of Peru and Defense Counsel specialized in constitutional affairs for the Office of the Peruvian Public Defender Samuel Abad Yupanqui was summoned by the Court, at the request of the Commission, to present a report on the habeas corpus decision and its immutability, finality and consent from the standpoint of constitutional and procedural law. In this regard, he stated that the Office of the Public Defender had considered a complaint presented in the Cesti Hurtado case and described the steps taken as a result of this and, in particular, the motives for decision 012 of the Public Defender, issued in 1997, which has been added to the pool of evidence (supra 55), and the reasons for filing an amicus curiae brief before this Court. The expert also described some judicial decisions in habeas corpus actions and, in particular, referred to the judgment pronounced on June 19, 1998, by the Constitutional Tribunal in the petition for habeas corpus filed by Carlos Alfredo Villalba Zapata (supra 56) and to the similarity of the facts that motivated it to those of the instant case.