79 Based on that overt legal manipulation orchestrated by the three branches of government in order to favor the referral of investigations to the military courts,112 a few days later the Sala Penal of the Corte Suprema (Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court) ordered that the case be referred to the CSJM (supra para. 80(50) and 80(51)). 138. In other words, from February to 1994 until the year 2001, criminal courts were prevented from hearing the case. In May 1994, eight Army officers were convicted by the military courts, and in August that year, three persons accused of instigating the crimes were discharged (supra para. 80(55) and 80(57)). 139. The Court must therefore determine whether the referral of the investigations to the military courts and the criminal proceedings carried out by them conformed to the terms of the American Convention, in terms of the nature of the military judges and the crimes in the instant case. 140. Article 8(1) of the American Convention provides that every person has the right to a hearing by a competent, independent and impartial judge or tribunal. Thus, this Court has held that “all persons subject to trial of any kind before a State body must have the guarantee that such body is impartial and acts within the procedural scope prescribed to hear and decide the case submitted to it.”113 141. In Perú, at the time of the events, the military courts were hierarchically subordinated to the Executive Power114 and the military judges in active duty who performed judicial functions,115 which inhibited, if not prevented, the military judges from making objective and impartial judgments.116 By the same token, the Court has taken into account 112 Cf. Final Report of the Comisión for Truth and Reconciliation, 2003, Volume VII, 2.22, “Extra-judicial executions of university students from La Cantuta (1992)”, pp. 241 to 245. 113 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al., supra note 6, para. 169, and Case of the Constitucional Court. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 77. 114 Section 23 of Decree-Law No. 23,201 of July 19, 1980, “updating and adjusting the Charter of the Military Courts to the new Political Constitution” provides that: “The President and members of the Tribunals shall be appointed by Supreme Resolution, approved by the Head of the appropriate Ministry.” In addition, Article 31 of the Charter of the Military Coruts sets forth that: “[…] Permanent Judges shall be appointed by the Executive Power.” Additionally, Section 32 provides that “Permanent Magistrates conducting Preliminary Proceedings shall sit in each Court District when necessary to meet the requirements of the service. Their number shall be fixed yearly by the Executivy Power upon the proposal of the Consejo Supremo de Justicia Militar (Supreme Military Justice Tribunal)..” 115 For instance, Section 6 of Decree-Law No. 23,201 of July 19, 1980, “updating and adjusting the Charter of the Military Courts to the new Political Constitution” as amended by Law No. 26,677 of October 22, 1996, which establishes that the Consejo Supremo de Justicia Militar (Supreme Military Justice Tribunal) is composed of General Officers and Admirals in active duty. Moreover, Section 12 of Decree-Law No. 23,201 sets forth that: “The Supreme Military Justice Tribunal shall: […] (15) Appoint to perform judicial duties the Officer in active duty who is legally apt for the Armed Forces and for the Police Forces in the event of absence or indisposition of the incumbent.” In addition, Section 22 of Law No. 26,677 sets forth: “In each Court District there shall be a War Council composed [...] of a Colonel or Ship Captain, who shall preside over it; two Members with a rank of Lieutenant Colonel, Frigate Captain or Commander of the Peruvian Air Force in active duty.” Perú’s Constitutional Court, through judgment of June 9, 2004 (File No. 0023-2003-AT/TC. Ombudsman's office), declared sections 6, 22 and 31 of the Charter of the Military Courts unconstitutional. 116 Section III of the Preliminary Chapter of Decree-Law No. 23,201 of July 19, 1980, i.e. "Charter of the Military Justice" sets forth that: "Military Justice is autonomous and in performing their duties its members do not report to any administrative authority, but to the judicial bodies of the highest hierarchy..” Pursuant to Section 15 of Decree-Law No. 23,201, "War Councils and Higher Courts of Justice of the Police Armed Forces are Permanent Tribunals under the authority of the Supreme Military Justice Tribunal" […]..”