B. Measures of restitution requested: Elimination of the disciplinary sanction and criminal records 221. The Commission did not refer to this item. The representative requested: (i) the elimination of the disciplinary sanction from the record of the military career of Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio, as well as the elimination of the criminal records in both the military and ordinary jurisdictions, and (ii) restitution of the victim to his military career, with the ranks that would correspond to him to this date, taking into account the academic qualifications and in accordance with the applicable domestic law. Lastly, it clarified that this is not limited solely to the restitution of his military career but also includes the reimbursement of all lost wages, plus interest. 222. The State reiterated that all judicial guarantees and judicial protection have been respected, that the administrative proceedings are valid and it would not be applicable to eliminate the disciplinary sanction or the criminal records of Jorge Enrique Rosadio Villavicencio. Regarding the restitution of the military career requested by the representative, Peru considers that the retirement of Mr. Jorge Enrique Rosadio Villavicencio occurred legally. Furthermore, the Commission did not request this measure as a recommendation in the Report on the Merits. 223. Firstly, in this judgment the Court declared that the State violated the rights of Mr. Rosadio to be informed previously and in detail of the accusation, and to be notified, without delay, of the charges brought against him in the ordinary criminal proceedings, military criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings. Moreover, in relation to the disciplinary military proceedings, the State also violated his right to a defense counsel, right to a hearing, the duty to provide adequate grounds and the right to defend oneself (supra para. 161). Regarding the ordinary criminal proceedings, the Court considered that Peru violated Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio’s right to adequate legal counsel (supra para. 180). Finally, regarding the military criminal proceedings, the Court declared that the State violated the principle of ne bis in idem, and it also failed to guarantee that Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio be judged by an impartial court. 224. Therefore, given the characteristics of the case, and as this Court has done on previous occasions,195 it orders the State to adopt all necessary judicial, administrative or other measures to annul the convictions that were issued in the ordinary criminal, military criminal and disciplinary proceedings, in all respects, and to remove the legal or disciplinary, criminal or military records that exist against him as a result of such proceedings, within six months from the notification of this judgment.196 225. The Court notes that, in this case, at the time of issue of this judgment, Mr. Jorge Enrique Rosadio Villavicencio had already served his total sentence and is free. The Court shall take this aspect into account when issuing a decision regarding the pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages. 226. Secondly, regarding the request for restitution to the military career, the representative did not provide to the Court suitable and sufficient evidence to make such determinations; therefore, the Court considers that it does not have the evidence necessary to order a measure of reparation of that nature. Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88; Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, supra; Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile, supra; Case of Kimel v. Argentina, supra; Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 27, 2009. Series C No. 193; Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207; Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2011. Series C No. 233; Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, Members and Activist of the Indigenous Mapuche People) v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 29, 2014. Series C No. 279, and Case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 30, 2019. Series C No. 380. 196 Cf. Case of Zegarra Marín v. Peru, para. 202; Case of Ruano Torres et al. v. El Salvador, para. 211; Case of García Cruz and Sánchez Silvestre v. Mexico, para. 73; Case of Maldonado Ordóñez v. Guatemala, para. 127. 195 50