23 Peruvian legislation, it is not requirable, either constitutionally or legally, and it constitutes an optional parallel route; and that, in accordance with Article 173 of the Constitution, the military jurisdiction is competent to judge civilians only in cases of crimes of treason, terrorism and breach of the law of obligatory military service. The expert, Valentín Paniagua Corazao, added that an alleged crime of fraud, such as that imputed to Gustavo Cesti Hurtado, falls outside the terms of military jurisdiction; that if a judge is not competent to issue a provisional order of arrest, neither is he competent to judge or convict; and that, in the case of Gustavo Cesti Hurtado, the writ of habeas corpus definitively exhausts the instance, having the force and effect of res judicata. Likewise, he declared that the Constitution commits the President of the Republic to complying with judgments pronounced by the Judiciary and seeing that they are complied with, and that no person may delay the execution of judgments or impede their execution; that judgments pronounced with regard to petitions for habeas corpus “may not be revised” and “exceptions may not be presented to them”, constitute res judicata only if they are favorable to the claimant, must be published in order to raise awareness and “confidence in the Constitution” in society, and “may not be appealed”. With regard to the military justice system, the expert advised that, according to the Constitution, civilians are excluded from its scope of competence and its only purpose is to prosecute and punish the so-called “service-related crimes”. During the examination by the State, the expert declared that there is an impediment to filing a petition for habeas corpus and a jurisdictional dispute simultaneously because, according to the Law of Habeas Corpus and Amparo, actions to protect rights are not admissible if the victim elects the parallel route; that, once the action to protect rights has concluded, there is no impediment to filing a jurisdictional dispute, but that the victim would not be obliged to do so because he would already enjoy juridical freedom and is not obliged to do what the law does not require. The expert concluded that “it would be irrational that, having achieved the most effective means of defending personal freedom, he would wish… to submit himself… to an absolutely useless and unnecessary procedure...”. Lastly, the expert stated that the petition for habeas corpus is filed not only against a violation, but also against the threat of the violation of a right, that it constitutes the most effective means to ensure the legal protection of the right threatened, and that, although it is true that Article 139 of the Constitution establishes that no person may interfere in judicial proceedings that are under way, it is also certain that judges are obliged to defend the principle of the judge with general jurisdiction and the jurisdiction ordained by law, so that, if there is opposition between these obligations, “the option is absolutely inevitable in favor of the person who has been deflected from the jurisdiction previously established by law”. In reply to questions from members of the Court, the expert declared that Article 105 of the 1979 Constitution enshrined the principle that treaties and agreements signed by Peru form part of national law and have constitutional rank and that the 1993 Constitution eliminated this provision and, in its place, established that the courts are obliged to interpret Peruvian constitutional law in the light of international human rights law.