29 91. On March 20, 1997, the Judge of the Thirtieth Criminal Court of Lima informed the Public Ministry of the facts that had occurred in the execution of the judgment of habeas corpus pronounced by the Public Law Chamber. 92. On April 30, 1997, the Prosecutor General instructed the Office of the Supreme Prosecutor for Action under Administrative Law to formulate a criminal complaint against the members of the Supreme Council of Military Justice for the crimes of violence and resistance to authority and abuse of authority. 93. On May 7, 1997, the Supreme Prosecutor, Nelly Calderón Navarro, accused the members of the Supreme Council of Military Justice of the crimes of violence and resistance to authority and abuse of authority. 94. On May 19, 1997, Provisional Supreme Magistrate Cerna Sánchez resolved to remit the complaint formulated by the Supreme Prosecutor for Action under Administrative Law against the members of the Supreme Council of Military Justice to the Prosecutor General of the Supreme Council of Military Justice and he transmitted an authenticated copy of the proceedings to the Executive Committee of the Office of the Attorney General so that it could proceed according to its competence. Gustavo Cesti Hurtado presented an appeal against this decision on May 26, 1997, which was not allowed. 95. On July 30, 1997, the Special Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice confirmed the decision of Provisional Supreme Magistrate Cerna Sánchez of May 19, 1997. E. The complaint against the Prosecutor General 96. On May 10, 1997, the Supreme Council of Military Justice filed a criminal complaint against Miguel Aljovín, for the crimes of prevarication against the jurisdictional function and abuse of authority. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LEGISLATION A. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus 97. Law No. 23,506 (“Law of Habeas Corpus and Amparo”) regulates the petition for a writ of habeas corpus in Peruvian legislation. According to this legislation, “[t]he objective of protective measures is to revert matters to the situation before the violation or threat of violation of a constitutional right” (Article 1). The decision can only be appealed if the habeas corpus has been refused (Article 21; in agreement, Article 41 of Law No. 26,435 [“Organic Law of the Constitutional Tribunal”]). 98. The habeas corpus action is not admissible, among other reason, “[a]gainst a judicial decision resulting from an ordinary proceedings [and w]hen the aggrieved party elects to have recourse to an ordinary proceedings” (Article 6)26. 26. Cfr. copy of Law No. 23,506, “Law of Habeas Corpus and Amparo”, Articles 21 and 39; and copy of Law No. 26,435, “Organic Law of the Constitutional Tribunal”, Article 41.