VIII MERITS 81. This case relates to the alleged international responsibility of the State for the alleged violation of due process in the three proceedings against Jorge Rosadio Villavicencio: military disciplinary, ordinary criminal and military criminal proceedings, regarding his participation in an intelligence operation. Among other violations, the State allegedly infringed the principle of ne bis in idem, given that two convictions were issued with penalties of the same nature (in the military criminal and ordinary criminal jurisdictions) based on the same facts. Furthermore, the State of Peru allegedly violated the right to personal liberty due to the preventive detention that he was subject to, as well as the right to an effective remedy to question the deprivation of liberty. The Court will now analyze the pleadings regarding merits of the parties in the following order: (i) the alleged violation of the principle of ne bis in idem regarding the two proceedings against the alleged victim; (ii) the alleged violation of the right to receive prior notification in detail of the accusation, the right to defend himself and the right to be informed of the reasons for his detention, regarding the three proceedings against Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio; (iii) other violations of the right to judicial guarantees (right to a fair trial) in each of the three proceedings; and (iv) the alleged violation of the right to personal liberty. VIII.1 PRINCIPLE OF NE BIS IN IDEM REGARDING THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ALLEGED VICTIM (Article 8(4) of the Convention in relation to Article 1(1) thereof) A. Arguments of the Commission and the parties 82. The Commission claimed that the State violated Article 8(4) of the Convention to the detriment of Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio because he was convicted in two final judgments, one in the ordinary jurisdiction for 15 years of prison and another in the military jurisdiction for 28 months of prison. In addition, it claimed that these penalties were of the same nature and based on the same facts. According to the Commission, the double jeopardy and conviction can be confirmed with the reasons for the judgment in the criminal military jurisdiction; although Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio was convicted of the crime of failure to obey a lawful order, there was no autonomous analysis to determine that crime; it was based on that the facts fell within the crime of illicit drug trafficking that was being heard in the ordinary jurisdiction. 83. Regarding the correlation between the administrative disciplinary sanction imposed and the criminal penalties mentioned, the Commission observed that the authorities did not clearly define the disciplinary reasons for the investigation of the alleged victim, and the Investigative Council did not clearly define the facts that corresponded to each of the grounds invoked. It considered that the State combined criminal offenses with disciplinary offenses, meaning that it imposed two different penalties based on the same legal grounds, subject matter and parties. 84. The representative agreed with that indicated by the Commission. 85. The State indicated that in order for there to be a violation of Article 8(4) of the American Convention: (i) the accused must have been previously acquitted, (ii) the acquittal must be by a non-appealable judgment; and (iii) the new trial must be based on the same facts that substantiated the first trial.89 However, in the dispute at hand none of these requirements are met, given that the judgments issued in both criminal jurisdictions were convictions. Furthermore, the condition that one of the criminal proceedings in the domestic jurisdiction must have concluded It claimed that the wishes of the States who ratified the Convention and the very text of that document would be highly affected if the Court intended, at this time, to introduce a new modality of violation of Article 8(4) of the Convention that is not contemplated in that provision and that the Court itself has not considered in the development of its jurisprudence. 89 21