6 33. They state that later, in June 2008, they learned that the suspect Antonio Mauricio Evangelista was in detention at the Lurigancho Penitentiary for the commission of another crime, as a result of which he was brought before the National Criminal Chamber and the commencement of oral proceedings was ordered for July 21, 2008. 34. They report that on July 23, 2008, the Criminal Chamber issued judgment against Antonio Mauricio Evangelista Pinedo, finding him guilty of crimes against life, body and health (simple homicide) with respect to Zulema Tarazona Arrieta and Norma Teresa Pérez, and of the crime of grievous bodily harm with respect to Luis Alberto Bejarano Laura; he received a six-year custodial sentence and was required to pay S 30,000.00 (thirty thousand new sols), to be paid jointly by him and by the State and Peruvian Army, to the families of Zulema Tarazona Arrieta and Norma Teresa Pérez Chávez, and of S 10,000.00 (ten thousand new sols) as civil redress payable to Luis Alberto Bejarano Laura. 35. They state that at the start of the oral proceedings, the defendant said he admitted the charges against him and admitted responsibility for the crime with which he was accused and for payment of the civil redress, and so an early conclusion of the proceedings was ordered in compliance with Article 5 of Law No. 28122. 36. Under the judgment, Antonio Mauricio Evangelista Pinedo’s actions were ruled to be a disproportionate use of force by a member of the armed forces over whom the military exercised no effective control. As for the civil redress, the petitioners report that the Criminal Chamber rejected, on grounds of untimeliness, the increase requested by the victims’ families and dismissed compensation for future lost earnings that the victims would have received had they been alive up to the date of judgment, on the grounds that any hypothetical future losses would be infinite. They report that the Criminal Chamber found that the pain and suffering experienced by the next-of-kin or assigns could be repaired with a sum of money and, in the case of Luis Alberto Bejarano Laura, the Criminal Chamber only took into account the injury that endangered his life at the time, together with the days he was unable to work. 37. The petitioners state that on July 24, 2008, they filed for the annulment of this judgment’s civil redress provisions; this filing was resolved on November 4, 2008, by the First Temporary Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, which upheld all aspects the first-instance judgment. 38. Regarding the execution of the Criminal Chamber’s judgment of July 23, 2008, the petitioners report that on December 24, 2008, the Criminal Chamber ordered the case file referred to the clerk of the Supraprovincial Criminal Courts for execution of sentence and, on March 4, 2009, the Fourth Supraprovincial Criminal Court ordered the convict, Antonio Mauricio Evangelista Pinedo, and the State, as a third party with civil responsibility, to pay the civil redress ordered, but set no deadline by which said payment had to be completed. They report that after asking the Court on repeated occasions to order the payment of the civil redress, in a resolution of December 15, 2009, the Fourth Supraprovincial Criminal Court notified them that the third party with civil responsibility had deposited only 50% of the amounts set as civil redress, which were later paid to the legal heirs of Zulema Tarazona Arrieta and to Luis Alberto Bejarano Laura. 39. They state that on January 6, 2010, the Fourth Supraprovincial Criminal Court ordered the civilly responsible third party to pay the full amount of civil redress as established in the judgment of July 23, 2008. They report that on January 20, March 16, and August 16, 2010, the petitioners requested the Fourth Court to order payment of the remaining 50% of the civil redress, which was later enforced. Legal grounds 40. The petitioners claim that as a consequence of the unnecessary, deliberate, and disproportionate actions of a member of the Army, two people were killed and another seriously injured and that the State is therefore responsible for violating the alleged victims’ right to life and to humane treatment. They thus contend that the State violated Articles 4 and 5 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof, in that it had the positive obligation of protecting its citizens’ lives through the actions of its police and armed forces. They maintain that not only must the State prosecute