superior, who declared in his statement that the alleged victim had “distorted the orders” given to him, and that “[h]e lied about the number of drug trafficking flights from the Sión location.” 156 15F 178. In this case, the Court considers that based on the described facts, by having assigned the same defense counsel to two codefendants, although their defense was incompatible due to the clearly conflicting versions of the facts, Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio’s right to be assisted by legal counsel was violated. 179. Consequently, the Court considers that the alleged victim was deprived of a suitable defense, in violation of Articles 8(2)(c) and 8(2)(e) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. B.3. Conclusion on the ordinary criminal proceedings 180. Regarding the ordinary criminal proceedings, the Court considers that the State is not responsible for the violation of the duty to provide grounds established in Article 8(1) of the Convention. However, it considers that Peru violated the rights enshrined in Articles 8(2)(c) and 8(2)(e) of the Convention to the detriment of Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, since he did not receive adequate legal counsel. C. Military criminal jurisdiction: Right to an impartial and independent judge and alleged violation of the right to defend oneself C.1. Arguments of the Commission and the parties 181. The Commission claimed that the proceedings before the military criminal jurisdiction were presided by the Permanent Military Judge of Tarapoto, JRH, who had acted as defense counsel of Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio and also as advisor to his hierarchical superior in the investigation by the Inspectorate of the Leoncio Prado Detachment. Hence, it argued that the State violated Article 8(1) and 8(2)(e) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio, in the military criminal proceedings. 182. Additionally, the Commission maintained that on September 16, 1997, the Supreme Council of Military Justice annulled the ruling that convicted him of the crime of negligence. Subsequently, on December 15, 1997, the Permanent War Council of the Sixth Judicial Military Area held a hearing and convicted the alleged victim of the crime of failure to obey a lawful order, after having reclassified the facts, although that crime was not included in the accusation made by the Military Prosecutor’s Office or in the final report by the Military Judge; therefore, the alleged victim was deprived of the opportunity to defend himself regarding that change in legal classification. Consequently, it considered that the State violated Articles 8(1), 8(2)(b) and 8(2)(c) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio in the proceedings before the military jurisdiction. 183. The representative agreed with that indicated by the Commission and also argued that Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio was not notified in advance of the hearings held on November 29, 1996, and December 15, 1997. It also claimed that the appointed defense counsel, the Captain of the Army’s Legal Services, FMC, was not in fact present at those hearings. 184. The State indicated that the alleged victim did not object to the judge or request his removal. It confirmed that JRH’s participation in the proceedings was minimal, consisting only of Cf. Statement of Colonel M before the Examining Judge of September 22, 1994 (evidence file, folio 33). The statement indicates that it took place “with the assistance of […] Legal Counsel of the Army of Peru Major S.J. - Army of Peru [JRH].” 156 41