3 precautions.” Finally, the State noted that in all proceedings conducted by military courts, the “principles of due process, the right of appeal (three instances), judicial control, reasoning of judgments, the prohibition of the use of analogy in criminal law, and notification of the cause for arrest” were observed and the detainee was provided with legal counsel. On September 23, 1994, the Commission forwarded a copy of the State’s answer to the claimants. 6. On November 18, 1994, the original claimants presented their observations on the State’s answer. There they requested that the “January complaint be expanded to include Alejandro Astorga Valdez,” who was not named as a victim in the original petition. They maintained that in Mr. Astorga Valdez’ case, the courts of first and second instance had agreed to a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. When the highest court granted a motion to nullify the lower courts’ rulings, however, Mr. Astorga Valdez was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. 7. Under Article 30 of its Regulations, the Commission agreed to expand the original complaint. 8. On December 14, 1994, the second set of claimants submitted a notarized power of attorney, executed by the alleged victims’ next of kin to the president of the Chilean Human Rights Commission, Mr. Jaime Castillo Velasco, and to Mr. Carlos Margotta Trincado. 9. On January 31, 1995, the Commission received from the claimants a report of the Human Rights Commission of the Chilean Parties of Democratic Reconciliation, which noted that the Commission in question had attempted, without success, to visit the Chilean citizens in prison in Peru. This report was sent to the State on March 20, 1995. 10. On March 8, 1995, the Commission received document No. 09-FG/CSJM, dated February 15 of that year, wherein the Prosecutor General of the Supreme Court of Military Justice reported that the alleged victims had been sentenced to life imprisonment. The document also stated that Mr. Castillo Petruzzi’s defense attorney had filed a motion to have his conviction overturned, which the Special Tribunal of the Supreme Court of Military Justice dismissed as unfounded. This information was conveyed to the claimants on March 16, 1995. 11. By note of June 6, 1995, the State presented documents No. 316-95 of June 2, 1995, and No. 222-95-MP-FN-FEDPDH-DH-V of April 18, 1995, concerning a request for verification of the four alleged victims’ health and legal status. Additional information was supplied on November 7, 1995, to the effect that Mrs. María Concepción Pincheira Sáez had been convicted of treason and sentenced to life imprisonment and that “she was counseled by Dr. Castañeda throughout the proceedings.” That communication added that the prisoner “reports health problems and harassment by inmates.” This information was sent to the claimants on November 30, 1995. 12. On June 14, 1996, the claimants asked the Commission to adopt precautionary measures for the alleged victims in anticipation of their possible transfer to an “uninhabitable” prison. The Commission asked the State to supply information on this matter, since the order from the Special Tribunal of the Supreme Court of Military Justice had been that their sentence of life imprisonment was to be served at the Yanamayo Prison in Puno. By note of July 16, 1996, the State reported