31 American Convention. However, prior to this, the Court considers it necessary to examine various declarations made by the parties in this proceeding. 105. At this time, the first series of declarations that the Court considers it necessary to clarify refer to the innocence or guilt of Gustavo Cesti Hurtado with regard to the crimes that he is alleged to have committed in Peru. In its complaint, the Commission asserts that a number of irregularities in the proceeding under which these alleged crimes were investigated were denounced before it; these included restrictions to the examination of the case file, the issue of decisions in which exonerating elements that had been presented had not been taken into consideration, and the use of “false documents”. 106. However, the Commission itself has put on record that “it is aware, when submitting [the] application, that it is not a question of the innocence or guilt of Gustavo Cesti. This must be decided under domestic law…” and, accordingly, it has declared that “despite the abundant evidence that has been presented [to it] by the victim, claiming his innocence…, it has reserved such evidence, since it considers that it does not pertain to this proceeding”. 107. The State declared that Gustavo Cesti Hurtado is guilty of having committed serious crimes against military finances, in connivance with officers on active duty. 108. In a previous case, this Court has already clearly established that it is not a criminal court before which an individual’s responsibility for crimes committed may be debated27. This declaration may be applied to the instant case, which does not relate to the innocence or guilt of Gustavo Cesti Hurtado in the facts attributed to him in Peru. Accordingly, the Court will restrict itself to determining the juridical consequences of the facts that it finds have been proved, within the framework of its competence. IX VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 7(6) AND 25(1) AND 2(C) 109. The Commission alleged that the State violated Articles 7(6) and 25(1) and 2(C) of the American Convention by not ensuring that the competent authorities complied with the habeas corpus decision in favor of Gustavo Cesti Hurtado. In this respect, it stated that this decision, dated February 12, 1997, was notified to the members of the military justice system who, despite repeated requests by the alleged victim, the Public Defender and the Inter-American Commission, refused to execute it and convicted Gustavo Cesti Hurtado. 110. The Commission added that the provision of Article 25 of the Convention is applicable to proceedings under the military justice system, that the simple and prompt recourse referred to is in order before any authority, official or person, and that no exception exists that excludes military judges from the terms of this provision, either in the Convention or the Peruvian Constitution. Likewise, the Commission requested the Court to order the State to execute immediately the decision issued in the habeas corpus procedure and liberate the victim immediately and unconditionally (infra 190.a). 27. Suárez Rosero case, Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 37.