will need to be explained further in the criminal process), either at the time of detention or subsequently […].279 224. In section F of the judgment, “Extrajudicial execution,” the court first noted that this was not codified as an autonomous crime in the Peruvian criminal code, 280 and held that: The criminal proceedings have proven the death of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez, who was detained or apprehended by two police officers from the National Intelligence Service after the rooms of the residence had already been brought under control and the hostages had been evacuated to neighboring houses near the residence of the Japanese ambassador; he was then found prone in an area located between House 01 and the residence itself, with a single bullet wound that entered from the left side of the neck and was necessarily fatal, and he was seen in this area under the guard of personnel from the National Intelligence Service. Also relevant are the opinions concerning the distance at which the shot was fired, the position of Cruz Sánchez’ body at the time of impact, and the caliber of the projectile able to cause a wound of this kind. However, it has not been possible to determine whether this happened by order or command from any the defendants present in what has been called the “parallel chain of command”, that is, the commission of the crime as the direct consequence of a policy of state.281 225. The Third Chamber also ruled on the scope of the judicial decisions issued by the military courts and held that the decision for dismissal handed down in that jurisdiction included the case for the death of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez, even though the order to open investigation that was delivered by that court did not include him as a victim. Specifically, the court maintained: These judicial rulings from the military courts are based on the alleged extrajudicial execution of four members of the subversive group known as the Túpac Amaru Revolutionary Movement, identified as Roli Rojas Fernández, Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza, Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva and Luz Dina Villoslada Rodríguez, when they had surrendered at the end of the military operation; that is, the order to open investigation in the military jurisdiction did not hold Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez as a victim. Nonetheless, in the majority view of the judicial panel, bearing in mind that the ordinary courts yielded jurisdiction to the military courts so they could also hear the cases of Augusto Jaime Patiño, José Williams Zapata, Luis Alatrista Rodríguez, Carlos Tello Aliaga, Benigno Leonel Cabrera Pino and Jorge Orlando Fernández Robles, who came under investigation in the ordinary courts for the death of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez, it may be inferred that the order for dismissal in the military courts also includes this victim, and indeed, the supreme military ruling, in the judgment dated [April 5, 2004], takes jurisdiction based on the yielding of jurisdiction for Cruz Sánchez […], which does not prevent this criminal court from examining this matter in the context of the criminal investigation to shed light on the case of the defendants at trial.282 226. The Third Chamber also reasoned on whether the military courts had jurisdiction to hear crimes of this kind. It held: Ruling by the Third Special Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima, October 15, 2012 (evidence file, volume XX, annexed to the representatives’ observations on the State’s preliminary objections, folio 13684). 279 Cf. Ruling by the Third Special Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima, October 15, 2012 (evidence file, volume XX, annexed to the representatives’ observations on the State’s preliminary objections, folio 13680). 280 Ruling by the Third Special Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima, October 15, 2012 (evidence file, volume XX, annexed to the representatives’ observations on the State’s preliminary objections, folio 13681). 281 Ruling by the Third Special Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima, October 15, 2012 (evidence file, volume XX, annexed to the representatives’ observations on the State’s preliminary objections, folios 13669 to 13670). 282