classifications, such as in this case in the ordinary criminal law and in military criminal law; rather, the legal system of each State must decide the question of jurisdiction in a manner that prevents the splitting up of a single fact. 105. In sum, what violates the American Convention is imposing multiple punishments for the same act or omission, given that the judicial guarantee presumes that a single act or omission shall not be subject to multiple proceedings. 106. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State is internationally responsible for the violation of Article 8(4) of the Convention in relation to the ordinary criminal proceedings and the military criminal proceedings. B.1. Criminal proceedings and military disciplinary proceedings 107. Regarding the criminal penalties mentioned and the administrative disciplinary sanction imposed, the Commission and the representative claimed that the authorities did not clearly define the facts and disciplinary reasons for the investigation of the alleged victim and that the Investigative Council for Junior Officers failed to clearly define the facts that corresponded to each of the grounds invoked. According to the Commission, the facts referred to in these proceedings are the same as those discussed in the ordinary and military criminal proceedings. Moreover, the State did not present its arguments regarding the difference between the crime of failure to obey a lawful order and that legal concept as a disciplinary offense, or the distinction between the crime of illicit drug trafficking and that legal concept in the disciplinary jurisdiction. Therefore, 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, in violation of Article 8(4) of the Convention. 108. Firstly, the Court considers that the Commission’s claim that the State’s judicial and military-administrative authorities failed to clarify the grounds for their decisions must be analyzed in relation to right to adequate grounds, which will be addressed in chapter VIII.3 infra. 109. Secondly, the purpose of this chapter is to determine whether the State violated the principle of ne bis in idem by carrying out military disciplinary proceedings and two criminal proceedings (ordinary and military) against the same party, based on the same legal grounds and in relation to the same subject matter or protected juridical rights. It is an undisputed fact that in both criminal proceedings and in the disciplinary proceedings the person tried and punished was Jorge Enrique Rosadio Villavicencio. Therefore, the analysis required is whether the facts (grounds) and subject matter of the aforementioned proceedings are the same. B.1.1 Ordinary criminal proceedings and military disciplinary proceedings 110. Regarding the identity of the facts, it has been confirmed that the same factual background was used in the ordinary criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings. In fact, in the disciplinary proceedings, the order of March 3, 1995, issued by the Army General Command, decided to retire the alleged victim “[pursuant to] that proposed by the Division General of the Army General Command.”98 In the Minutes of the Investigative Council for Junior Officers of February 7, 1995, signed by the presidency of the Division General,99 the following facts were considered proven in relation to then Lieutenant Rosadio Villavicencio: […] he authorized three illegal drug-trafficking flights (on August 17, 24 and 31, 1994), but reported only the last flight (August 31, 1994) to the Command position of the Leoncio Prado Detachment; […] he permitted the installation and operation of a laboratory to prepare basic cocaine paste at the Sión location, and 98 99 Order of the Army General Command, No. 0527 CP/EP/CP-JAPE 1d (evidence file, folio 82). Minutes of the Investigative Council for Junior Officers, Session No. 007-95 (evidence file, folio 55). 26