itself from hearing the case and to send all the files to the military courts “which are competent to hear this case.”228 187. The War Chamber decided on June 26, 2002, to request the Third Special Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima to recuse itself from the investigation tagged as 192002.229 188. María Genara Fernández, mother of victim Roli Rojas Fernández, filed a brief on August 1, 2002, asking to appear in the proceedings before the military courts as a plaintiff. 230 The decision was made the next day to admit her appearance. 231 A preliminary statement was issued on August 13, 2002 in the framework of this case, and she was granted access to the case file.232 189. The investigative justice department of the CSJM submitted to the Supreme Court a jurisdictional challenge motion which was adjudicated by the Transitory Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court on August 16, 2002.233 The Supreme Court settled the jurisdictional dispute in favor of the military courts for the commandos involved in the operation and issued orders for the investigation to continue in the ordinary courts only for the “participants who were not part of the commandos”—Vladimiro Montesinos Torres, Nicolás de Bari Hermoza Ríos, Roberto Huamán Ascurra and Jesús Zamudio Aliaga. Their reasoning went as follows: […] That the military operation […] was planned and executed by then President Alberto Fujimori Fujimori, Supreme Chief of the Armed Forces, to preserve domestic order and national security which had been severely undermined by the armed attack of a terrorist group […], and the intervention of military commandos can therefore be understood as an action that occurred in a zone under declared state of emergency; therefore, Article 10 of Law 24,150 should apply, according to which, in-service members of the Armed Forces in zones under a declared state of emergency are subject to the provisions of the code of military justice, and any infractions committed by such personnel in the course of their work, codified under military justice, are under the jurisdiction of the military courts, with the exception of those that may be unrelated to their service, as in the case of the persons not included in the order [to open] investigation issued by the military jurisdiction; […] That if the military group that was assembled and trained for this purpose, having conducted the operation to rescue the hostages in obedience to superior orders in a scenario of clear military confrontation, committed punishable offenses or excesses as defined in the code of military justice during their intervention, such eventuality should be considered as having occurred in the exercise of their duties, and therefore those Note sent to the president of the War Chamber of the Supreme Council of Military Justice, June 20, 2002 (evidence file, volume XXII, helpful evidence, folios 14865 to 14866). 228 Cf. Order sent by the alternate investigating judge of the War Chamber on June 26, 2002 (evidence file, volume XXII, helpful evidence, folios 14917 to 14920), and note 1024-VI-CSJM/2002 received on June 27, 2002 (evidence file, volume XXII, helpful evidence, folios 14921 to 14922). 229 Cf. Brief addressed to the resident of the War Chamber of the Supreme Council of Military Justice, August 1, 2002 (evidence file, volume XVIII, annex 22 to the State’s answering brief, folio 12263). 230 Cf. Decision by the alternate investigating judge of the Supreme Council of Military Justice, August 2, 2002 (evidence file, volume XVIII, annex 22 to the State’s answering brief, folio 12264). 231 Cf. Preliminary statement rendered by María Genera Fernández, August 13, 2002 (evidence file, volume XVIII, annex 22 to the State’s answering brief, folios 12266 to 12268), and record of August 13, 2002 (evidence file, volume XVIII, annex 22 to the State’s answering brief, folio 12269). 232 Cf. Ruling by the Transitory Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court on August 16, 2002 (evidence file, volume XXIII, helpful evidence, folios 15778 to 15783). 233