22 Samuel Abad Yupanqui stated that habeas corpus is in order against the acts of any authority, including competent civil or military authorities; that, according to Article 173 of the Peruvian Constitution, retired members of the armed forces are considered to be civilians and, consequently, may not be submitted to military jurisdiction; that, in the case of Gustavo Cesti Hurtado, there is no pronouncement from the Constitutional Tribunal because access to this instance is reserved for when the petition for habeas corpus is rejected and, therefore, the favorable decision of the appellate procedure exhausted the proceedings; and that, according to Article 15 of Law 23,506, the pronouncement in favor of Gustavo Cesti Hurtado in the petition for habeas corpus has the force and effect of res judicata. Likewise, the expert stated that, faced with detention by an allegedly incompetent authority, a person may choose between a jurisdictional dispute and filing a petition for habeas corpus and that, in order to file the latter, there is no need to previously exhaust the jurisdictional dispute. During the examination by the State, the expert declared that no authority has the powers to refuse to execute a writ of habeas corpus; that once this has been issued, it is not in order to recommend filing a jurisdictional dispute; that habeas corpus is in order when the provisions of the Constitution are not respected, and this includes violation of due process; and that, in the proceedings against Gustavo Cesti Hurtado under the military justice system, due process was affected by submitting him to an incompetent tribunal. Likewise, the expert stated that the Office of the Public Defender had recommended that the writ of habeas corpus issued in favor of Gustavo Cesti Hurtado should be executed “without prejudice to investigations continuing before the competent jurisdictional body”; and that, with the exception of cases when the death penalty is imposed, the Peruvian Constitution prevents the Supreme Court from reviewing a judgment pronounced by military tribunals. Lastly, the expert declared that non-compliance with a writ of habeas corpus constitutes an offense of resisting and disobeying authority, regulated by Article 368 of the Criminal Code. b. Report of the expert, Valentín Paniagua Corazao, Professor of Constitutional Law at the Catholic University, the Sacred Heart Women’s University and the University of Lima; former President of the Chamber of Deputies, former Minister of Justice and former Minister of Education of Peru Valentín Paniagua Corazao was summoned by the Court, at the request of the Commission, so that he could present a report on the writ of habeas corpus and its immutability, finality and consent from the standpoint of constitutional and procedural law. The expert described Peruvian legislation on the constitutional and jurisdictional control of State acts and the binding nature of the decisions of the Constitutional Tribunal with regard to writs of habeas corpus which must be recognized by the military tribunals, because the latter are subject to the control of the Constitution. Likewise, the expert declared that, in cases of harm or threat to personal freedom by the tribunals, the appropriate recourse would be the petition for habeas corpus, contemplated in Article 12 of Law 23,506; that, although jurisdictional dispute exists in