5 18. Also, this Court has ruled that the respondent Government itself has acknowledged “the partiality of the judges of the criminal courts in the trial of the La Cantuta events" (para. 144). The Court repeated its understanding in the sense that “in a democratic constitutional state, the jurisdiction of military criminal courts must be restrictive and exceptional” (para. 142). In this case, there was “manipulation of legal and constitutional mechanisms,” obstruction of the investigations of the ordinary justice, “irregular deviation of the military jurisdiction investigations,” with the aim of “securing impunity for those responsible” (para. 143). 19. It is significant that, regarding that matter, the Peruvian Constitutional Court itself, in its Judgment of November 29, 2005 (re: S. Martín Rivas), warned that considering the circumstances of the cas d'espèce, "there is evidence that the purpose of the criminal process filed within the military jurisdiction environment was to prevent the petitioner from being held liable for the acts charged with. Those circumstances are related to the existence of a systematic plan to promote impunity regarding human rights and crimes against humanity, particularly regarding to acts committed by Grupo Colina, to which the petitioner is linked. In fact, that systematic plan is expressed by: (i) the deliberate prosecution of ordinary crimes by military bodies (...); (ii) the enactment, during that term, of amnesty laws 26,479 and 26,462. (...).”5 20. In the same Judgment, the Peruvian Constitutional Court added that, also in the case of Barrios Altos, in its opinion, "there are numerous objective elements which show that the prosecution of the petitioner for crimes against humanity (...) was not really aimed at investigating and punishing him in an effective way.”6 That is to say, the Peruvian Constitutional Court itself set forth the manipulations, on the part of the military jurisdiction, to conceal a criminal State practice, and to guarantee the impunity of those who were liable. 21. Said Law denial was not disregarded - it could not be so - by this Court. In this Judgment in the case of La Cantuta, this Court, coherently with its Judgments of Barrios Altos (2001) and Almonacid et al. (2006), pondered, specifically regarding the legal concept of res judicata, that the principle of non bis in idem is not applied when the process, not independently or impartially instituted, boiled down to exempt the accused from his criminal liability, thus configuring and “apparent” or “fraudulent” res judicata (para. 153), which constitutes the Law denial itself. 22. Finally, the extensive and detailed Final Report of Peru´s CVR determines the facts which configured the State criminal practice during the period at issue. The cases of La Cantuta (1992),7 Barrios Altos (1991),8 Huilca Tecse (1992),9 among others, are therein fully described with high degree of detail. When determining the “legal frame of forced 5 Peru Constitutional Court, Judgment of November 29, 2005 (re: S. Martín Rivas), file No. 4587-2004AA/TC, p. 19, paras. 81-83. 6 Ibid., p. 18, para. 78. 7 CVR, Final Report, op. cit. supra No. (3), sections 2(19), pp. 605-632, and 2(22), pp. 233-245. 8 CVR, Final Report, op. cit. supra No. (3), section 2(45), pp. 475-493. 9 CVR, Final Report, op. cit. supra No. (3), section 2(58), pp. 629-647.