established on the laws and Constitution10, obligation that can not be transferred to the presumed victim or his family, as a requirement of exhausting domestic remedies11. 36. According to the foregoing, the IACHR is of the opinion, based on the statements by the parties and the content of Article 4 of the Organic Law of Military Justice,12 and Article 361 of the Code of Military Criminal Justice,13 that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice that settled the conflict of jurisdiction exhausted domestic remedies, as it is not subject to an appeal of any kind. 2. Time period for lodging a petition 37. As regards the time period for lodging a petition, the petitioner stated in its very first brief that although the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice put an end to domestic proceedings, it was issued on May 12, 2003, and they were not notified until September 8, 2003.14 Evidence of this is provided in the annexed copy of the brief requesting photocopies of the judgment, and the photocopy sent with notes and dated September 9, 2003. 38. In its initial response after the complaint was forwarded to it, the State did not object to that date. The complaint in this case from COMISEDH was received by the IACHR Secretariat by regular mail on February 3, 2004, which falls within the term of six months from the date on which the alleged victim was notified of the final decision. 39. For these reasons, the IACHR is of the view that the requirements pertaining to the time for lodging the complaint with the inter-American system for protection of human rights, pursuant to Article 46 1(b) of the American Convention, have been met. 3. Duplication of procedures and res judicata 40. The Commission understands that the subject of the petition is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement, and that it is not a replication of a petition already examined by it or another international organization. Consequently, the requirements established in Articles 46 (1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention have been met. a. Characterization of the alleged facts 41. The petitioner alleges violations of his rights to humane treatment and to a fair trial, protected in Articles 5 and 8, respectively, of the American Convention, and thus noncompliance by the State of Peru with the international obligation established in Article 1(1) of the Convention. 42. With the elements of proof alleged by the petitioner and the State, the IACHR finds that even though there was a clear, direct complaint of acts of torture against a specific person, i.e., the complaint lodged by COMISEDH with the National Prosecutor [Fiscal de la Nación] alleging a crime against humanity in the form of torture, the State of Peru, through the Huancayo Provincial Public Prosecutor’s Office for Criminal Matters, refrained from conducting an official investigation into the events, as it only brought criminal action before a judge for the crime of serious injury, and it rejected the conduct of torture, on the grounds “…that the description of the acts related by the injured party did not constitute [such conduct].” This decision was upheld by the Fiscal Superior, who was of the opinion that it was appropriate to expand the complaint to include the crime of abuse of authority. 10 Political Constitución of Peru, Article 159 and Criminal Process Code, Decree 957, Articule IV. IACHR, Report 14-04, Case 11.562, Luis Antonio Galindo Cárdenas, February 27, 2004, para. 38, IACHR Report 5297, Case 11.218, Arges Sequeira Mangas vs. Nicaragua, February 18, 1998, para. 96. 12 Organic Law of Military Justice, Art. 4º. The Supreme Court of Justice is responsible for : 1. Resolving jurisdictional disputes that arise between Military and Ordinary Courts 13 Code of Military Justice, Art. 361. Jurisdictional disputes that involve the military jurisdiction shall be resolved: b) By the Supreme Court of Justice, when they arise between military and ordinary courts. 14 COMISEDH Petition, February 3, 2004, para. 29. 11 7