65 would imply their retroactive application. For its part, Peru’s domestic legal system would have determined the jurisdictional disputes between the military jurisdiction and ordinary courts. 236 214. At the public hearing, the State emphasized that the representatives of the alleged victims did not question the classification of the facts by the Public Prosecutor’s Office in the domestic proceedings, were not present during the forensic procedures in 2010, nor did they request the domestic courts to include the State as a civilly liable third party. Thus, it pointed out that the domestic remedies for the protection of rights were set aside in order to have recourse to international remedies. Finally, in its final written arguments, Peru pointed out that it is noteworthy that an infringement of the right to know the truth is being claimed, disregarding the results of the investigation and the determination of the proven facts in the judgment of the National Criminal Chamber, and confirmed by the Supreme Court of Justice. B. Considerations of the Court 215. In the instant case, a trial was opened in the military jurisdiction before the Sixth Permanent Military Court of the Second Army Judicial District of Ayacucho. However, a jurisdictional dispute ensued between the military jurisdiction and the Examining Magistrate of the ordinary criminal jurisdiction of Huancavelica, which was submitted to the consideration of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. The latter ruled that the ordinary jurisdiction should hear the case, and therefore oral proceedings were initiated by the Mixed Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Huancavelica. In 1995, Amnesty Law No. 26.479 was applied in both jurisdictions; however, in 2002, the case was reopened in the military jurisdiction, and in 2005 in the ordinary jurisdiction. There is no record in the file of any subsequent proceedings in the military jurisdiction. However, in the ordinary jurisdiction, in October 2006, the National Criminal Chamber of Lima took charge of the proceedings that later resulted in the conviction of Oscar Alberto Carrera Gonzales to 20 years imprisonment, and in which the capture of the absentee defendants was ordered. In August 2011, the Fourth Supra Provincial Criminal Court of Lima opened an investigation that resulted in the dismissal of the case against Simón Fidel Breña Palante, through the February 2013 ruling of the National Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (supra paras. 106, 113 to 119, 123 to 125 and 131 to 134). 216. The Court recalls that, by virtue of the protection granted under Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, States are obliged to provide effective judicial remedies to the victims of human rights violations, which must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process of law. 237 The Court has also indicated that the right of access to justice must guarantee, within a reasonable time, the right of the alleged victims or their next of kin to ensure that everything necessary is done to learn the truth of what happened and to investigate, prosecute and, if appropriate, punish those responsible. 238 In this regard, the Constitutional Court’s rulings of March 16, 2004 and June 9, 2004, declared the unconstitutionality of certain articles of the Code of Military Justice, Decree Law No. 23214 and of the Organic Law of Military Justice, Decree Law No. 23201, thus modifying the legislation on Military Justice. Likewise, the crime of military function was defined in order to establish and clearly delimit the competences of the military and ordinary jurisdictions and to determine which crimes committed by members of the Armed Forces or the National Police of Peru that affect legal assets under the ordinary jurisdiction were to be exclusively heard by the ordinary jurisdiction. In addition, the Plenary of the Peruvian Constitutional Court issued a new ruling on the matter on December 15, 2006, stating that the military courts could not hear common crimes defined in the Criminal Code. It also declared the unconstitutionality of certain articles of Legislative Decree No. 961, Code of Military and Police Justice. Thus, Article 169 of the former Code of Military Justice, which regulated the crime of Abuse of Authority, was codified in Article 139, paragraph 1 of Legislative Decree No. 961, Code of Military and Police Justice, with the title of “Excesses in the Authority of Command”, which was declared unconstitutional by the aforementioned ruling of the Constitutional Court. 237 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Exceptions. Judgment of 26 June 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 91, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 289, para. 237. 238 Cf. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina, Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 114, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru, supra, para. 237. 236