64. The Court would note, in this regard, that from the time the petitioners first submitted their claim, they maintained that, after the hostage rescue operation had been completed, at least three members of the MRT had been detained and summarily executed; their remains had been hidden from their families to avert any judicial actions; the family members had not been allowed to take part in the identification or autopsy of the bodies; the remains had been buried in clandestine locations in several different cemeteries in the city of Lima; the military courts had not served as an effective remedy to protect the rights of the alleged victims and the members of their families, and the decision to partition the criminal investigation and submit part of it to the military courts had facilitated impunity.48 65. The Commission concluded in its Admissibility Report No. 13/04 that it had jurisdiction to hear the merits of the case and that the petition was admissible with respect to the alleged violations of the right to life, the right to judicial guarantees and the right to judicial protection, established in the American Convention in Articles 4, 8 and 25, read in conjunction with Article 1(1), in injury of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez, Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva and Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza49. The Commission’s Admissibility Report also included a section entitled “III. Positions of the parties,” containing the following arguments submitted by the petitioners: […] 11. When the military rescue operation was over, the bodies were removed by military prosecutors; representatives from the Attorney General’s Office were not permitted entry. The corpses were not taken to the Institute of Forensic Medicine for the autopsy required by law; in a highly irregular move, the bodies were taken instead to the morgue at the Police Hospital. It was there that the autopsies would be performed. The autopsy reports were kept secret until 2001. Next of kin of the deceased were not allowed to be present for the identification of the bodies and the autopsies. The bodies were buried in secrecy in various cemeteries throughout Lima. […] 30. The petitioners’ contention was that the proceedings in the military court system cannot be an effective recourse for the protection of the rights of the victims and their next of kin and for reparation of the damages caused. The military system of criminal justice claimed jurisdiction over the case to protect those involved; hence, the military court proceedings do not afford the minimum guarantees of independence and impartiality required under Article 8(1) of the Convention. […] 66. The petitioners, during the merits stage, repeatedly made reference to the alleged facts and to the alleged injuries suffered by the families. 50 After April 23, 2008, the petitioners Cf. Brief of the initial petition submitted to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on February 19, 2003 (case file of the proceedings before the Commission, volume III, folios 1707 to 1716). 48 Cf. Admissibility Report No. 13/04 by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, February 27, 2004, para. 3 (case file of the proceedings before the Commission, volume III, folio 1613). 49 Cf. Petitioners’ brief submitted to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, June 1, 2004 (case file of the proceeding before the Commission, volume III, folios 1589 to 1605); audio recording of the public hearing on February 28, 2005, during the 122nd regular session of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (evidence file, volume II, annex 46 of the case submission brief, folio 1326); petitioners’ brief before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, April 23, 2008 (case file of the proceeding before the Commission, volume III, folios 1887 to 1932); petitioners’ brief submitted to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, October 8, 2008 (case file of the proceeding before the Commission, volume III, folios 2363 to 2374); petitioners’ brief submitted to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, December 10, 2009 (case file of the proceeding before the Commission, volume IV, folios 2739 to 2743), and petitioners’ brief submitted to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, February 8, 2011 (case file of the proceeding before the Commission, volume IV, folios 2723 to 2725). 50