411. The Court’s case law holds that a State incurs international responsibility for Article 2 of the American Convention not only when its domestic laws violate the Convention, 459 but also when government officials, in applying a domestic provision, interpret it in a way that violates rights protected by the Convention. 460 412. The Court notes that in the instant case, the Commission did not challenge the domestic legal effects governing the possibility that crimes of function could be heard by the military courts, but merely questioned the interpretation given by the Supreme Court when it settled the jurisdictional dispute between the ordinary courts and the military courts, pointing to the Court’s case law on the jurisdictional scope of military justice. 413. The Court agrees that this argument does not challenge Peruvian law, but rather a practice by domestic authorities based on the decision by which the jurisdictional dispute was settled when the Supreme Court extended the jurisdiction of the military justice system to include crimes having no strict connection to military discipline or protected interests proper to the military. It thus overlooked the Inter-American Court’s interpretation of such guarantees concerning the scope of the military criminal jurisdiction. This line of reasoning is closely related to the argument discussed above to the effect that the military criminal courts were not competent to hear the facts of this case in light of the Court’s established case law on Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. 414. The Court understands that the decision was specific to the particular case at hand and that both the Constitutional Court 461 and the Supreme Court462 subsequently changed this practice, setting general, binding principles according to which the military courts must limit themselves to crimes of function determined on the basis of the protected legal interest, and not common crimes entailing human rights violations. 415. The Court therefore does not find violation of Article 2 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 8 and 25 thereof. F. Lack of due diligence Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 416. The Commission offered no arguments on this matter. 417. The representatives emphasized that no process had begun as yet, nor had any proceedings been undertaken at all, to discover whether military personnel had participated in the execution of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez, “even though there was evidence that the Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 123. 459 460 Cf. Case of Gomes Lund et al. ("Guerrilha do Araguaia") v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No. 219, paras. 172 and 174. Cf. Constitutional Court, File 0017-2003-AI/TC, judgment of March 16, 2004, paras. 129 to 133 (evidence file, volume VIII, annex 8 to the brief with pleadings, motions and evidence, folios 5249 to 5278). See also: Office of the Ombudsman, Report 97, A dos años de la Comisión de la Verdad y Reconciliación, September, 2005, pp. 130 to 135 (evidence file, volume VII, annex 6 to the brief with pleadings, motions and evidence. folios 4842 to 4847). 461 Cf. Supreme Court, Permanent Criminal Law Chamber, jurisdictional dispute 18-2004, order of November 17, 2004; First Transitory Criminal Law Chamber, jurisdictional dispute 29-04, order of December 14, 2004, and Permanent Criminal Law Chamber, jurisdictional dispute 8-2005, order of July 1, 2005. See also: Office of the Ombudsman, Report 97, A dos años de la Comisión de la Verdad y Reconciliación, September, 2005, pp. 130 to 135 (evidence file, volume VII, annex 6 to the brief with pleadings, motions and evidence. folios 4842 to 4847). 462