86 149. In this regard, the Court has stated that, in doing so: […] the military tribunal acted ultra vires[,] usurped jurisdiction and arrogated to itself the powers of the regular judicial organs, inasmuch as Decree-Law 25,475 (crime of terrorism) stipulates that the aforesaid crime is to be investigated by the National Police and the Ministry of the Interior, and tried in the civil courts. Further, the regular judicial authorities were the only organs with the power to order the detention and imprisonment of the person accused.247 150. In view of the above, the Court declares that the State violated Article 8(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, by trying the alleged victim in the military jurisdiction for the crime of treason. b) Criminal proceeding in the ordinary jurisdiction 151. On August 28, 2000, after having declared that the special appeal for review of res judicata was admissible, the Supreme Council of Military Justice forwarded a copy of the whole file against Lori Berenson to the Attorney General’s office, so that the preliminary investigation in the ordinary criminal jurisdiction could be carried out, and also the trial before the National Terrorism Chamber, which delivered a judgment convicting her on June 20, 2001 (supra para. 88(69)). Then, on July 3, 2001, pursuant to the legislation in force in Peru, the alleged victim’s defense lawyer filed an appeal for annulment against the judgment delivered by the National Terrorism Chamber (supra para. 88(70)), which was rejected by the Supreme Court of Justice on February 13, 2002 (supra para. 88(72)). 152. The Court considers that, during the civil proceeding, the alleged victim’s right to be heard by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, was respected, in both the first and second instance. 153. The representatives of the alleged victim argued that the judges in the civil jurisdiction lacked independence and impartiality (supra para. 130(2)(f)). The Court observes that the alleged victim’s defense lawyer filed an objection on May 2, 2001, which was rejected by the National Terrorism Chamber, because it had been “filed during the continuation of public hearing No. 19 (supra para. 88(59)). Article 40 of the Peruvian Code of Criminal Procedure established that this objection should have been “filed before the same tribunal, up to three days before the hearing was set.”248 154. In this regard, the Human Rights Committee has indicated that: The purpose of Article 5, paragraph 2(b) of the Optional Protocol is, inter alia, to direct possible victims of violations of the Covenant provisions to seek, first, satisfaction from the competent State Party and, also, based on individual complaints, to allow States Parties to examine the implementation of the provisions of the Covenant, in their territory and by their organs and, if necessary, to remedy the violations that occur before the Committee hears the matter.249 247 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo, supra note 25, para. 61. 248 Cf. Article 40 of the Peruvian Code of Criminal Procedure (file of probative evidence provided by the State, tome 12, folios 9174 to 9342). 249 Cf. UN. Human Rights Committee, T.K. vs France, (220/1987), report of November 8, 1989, para. 8(3).