34 134. The IACHR notes that there were several resolutions to expand the deadline for committal proceedings No. 21-94 and that between December 1991 and January 1992 the Court of Cajatambo hearing the case was without a judge, which caused an unjustified delay in the result of the proceedings. Although the IACHR does not have a complete copy of case file No. 24-91, the information in its possession indicates that several months after Porfirio Osorio Rivera presented his complaint on June 9, 1991, the main formalities that had been carried out were the taking of his witness statement and of a statement from the defendant Juan Carlos Tello. 135. As has been established, on July 22, 1992, the Provincial Court of Cajatambo declined jurisdiction in favor of the military justice system and referred the proceedings to the Third Permanent Military Court of Lima. The IACHR notes that while the criminal proceedings were being dealt with by that court and other agencies of the military justice system, no significant formalities were performed, such as taking statements from Gudmer Tulio Zárate Osorio and from the members of the Army patrol who detained Jeremías Osorio Rivera on April 28, 1991. Those formalities were recommended by the Army’s judicial auditor in his opinion of February 2, 1994, but the case file before the IACHR contains no information to indicate that they were carried out. 136. As for the criminal proceedings under case file No. 859-92, the IACHR believes it would be unnecessary to offer a detailed examination of the omissions and irregularities committed therein. This is because allowing the military courts to hear cases of crimes involving human rights violations is per se contrary to the right of victims and their next-of-kin to be heard by a competent, independent, and 170 impartial tribunal, pursuant to the terms of the Article 8.1 of the Convention. 137. The Commission again states that military justice should be used only to judge activeduty military officers for the alleged commission of service-related offenses in the strictest sense. Human rights violations must be investigated, tried, and punished in keeping with the law, by the regular criminal courts. Inverting the jurisdiction in cases of human rights violations should not be allowed, as this undercuts judicial guarantees, under an illusory image of the effectiveness of military justice, with grave 171 institutional consequences, which ultimately call into question the civilian courts and the rule of law. 138. In the case at hand, note should be taken of the context of impunity within which the courts operated with respect to offenses committed by the security forces, chiefly after the coup d’état of April 5, 1992. Thus, in its Final Report, the CVR noted that during the Fujimori administration, the Public Prosecution Service deferred completely to the executive branch, and that public prosecutors refrained from bringing charges against members of the police and military, conducting forensic examinations, or 172 investigating state agents involved in human rights violations. As a result, between July 1992 and February 1996, the criminal proceedings into Jeremías Osorio Rivera’s disappearance were heard by courts and judges that not only lacked guarantees of impartiality and independence, but that also acted negligently in order to keep serious human rights violations committed by state agents under a blanket of impunity. 139. With reference to the criminal trial underway before the regular courts since Porfirio Osorio filed a new complaint on June 14, 2004, the IACHR notes that a series of formalities have been carried out in recent years, including taking witness statements from Cajatambo residents who saw the 170 IACHR, Application to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of Valentina Rosendo Cantú and others v. the United Mexican States, August 2, 2009, para. 126, available at www.cidh.oas.org/demandas/demandasESP2009.htm. IACHR, Report No. 53/01, Case 11.565, Merits, Ana, Beatriz, and Celia González Pérez, Mexico, April 4, 2001, para. 81, available at www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2000sp/CapituloIII/Fondo/Mexico11.565.htm. 171 IACHR, Application to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of Valentina Rosendo Cantú and others v. the United Mexican States, August 2, 2009, para. 123, available at www.cidh.oas.org/demandas/demandasESP2009.htm. Annex 7: IACHR, Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Peru, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.106, doc. 59 rev., June 2, 2000, Chapter II, para. 214, available at www.cidh.oas.org/countryrep/Peru2000sp/indice.htm. 172 Annex 82: Final Report www.cverdad.org.pe/ifinal/index.php. of the CVR, 2003, Vol. III, 2.6 The Judiciary, p. 283, available at