While we may disagree concerning the power of military justice to hear crimes of this nature, we must admit that there is a judgment delivered by those courts that has remained on the books because it has never been overruled by any authority; moreover, the jurisdiction over the military personnel involved was upheld by the highest judicial authority, the Supreme Court of Peru.283 227. The court, in operative paragraph five of its judgment, concluded that the circumstances of the death of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez were different from those of MRTA members Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva and Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza, because it had been established with great clarity in his case that personnel from the National Intelligence Service, not members of the “Tenaz Patrol”, had been involved in his death, and it decided, based on domestic law, to forward a certified copy of its proceedings to the Superior Criminal Prosecutor to order the relevant investigations. 284 228. The judgment of the Third Special Criminal Chamber was appealed on October 29, 2012 by the Assistant Prosecutor General from the Second Specialized Office of Prosecution for Crimes of Corruption by Public Officials,285 on behalf of the plaintiffs representing victims Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza and Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva and by the plaintiff representing victim Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez.286 229. The prosecution argued in its appeal that sufficient evidence existed to demonstrate the criminal liability of defendants Vladimiro Montesinos Torres, Nicolás de Bari Hermoza Ríos and Roberto Edmundo Huamán Ascurra. The prosecution based its motion to vacate on the following arguments:287 (i) that “the chamber should not admit any irregularities in the investigation stage, such as to cover up fingerprints, evidence or traces”; (ii) that “the partial selective autopsies on the bodies of the MRTA members at the Central Hospital of the National Police of Peru were performed contrary to the laws in place at the time of the facts”; (iii) that “the criminal chamber held that the forensic opinions given in the autopsies performed on the osseous remains of MRTA members, conducted by the Forensic Institute in 2001, were still valid”; (iv) that there were “flagrant flaws in the production of the record of identification and removal of the bodies […]”; (v) that “the military operation used the shooting technique known as SIS, Selective Instinctive Shooting”; (vi) that “the head of the ‘Tenaz Patrol’ held that the deaths of only 13 terrorists had been reported, but no one had reported on the means and circumstances of the death [of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez]”; (vii) that the “counterterrorist unit that conducted the military operation […] did not include members of the National Intelligence Service”; (viii) that “the criminal chamber did not acknowledge that Peruvian Army Lieutenant Colonel Jesús Salvador Zamudio Aliaga was subordinate to Peruvian Army Ruling by the Third Special Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima, October 15, 2012 (evidence file, volume XX, annexed to the representatives’ observations on the State’s preliminary objections, folio 13672). 283 Cf. Ruling by the Third Special Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima, October 15, 2012 (evidence file, volume XX, annexed to the representatives’ observations on the State’s preliminary objections, folios 13690 to 13691). Superior court judge Carolina Lizárraga Houghton attached a separate opinion to this ruling, stating that the investigation should not have been limited to members of the National Intelligence Service, and she believed that the judgment delivered in the military jurisdiction did not cover facts regarding the death of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez (volume XXI, folios 13692 to 13710). 284 Cf. Motion to vacate lodged by the Assistant Superior Prosecutor from the Second Specialized Office of Prosecution for Crimes of Corruption by Public Officials, October 29, 2012 (evidence file, helpful evidence, volume XXI, folios 14617 a 14665). 285 Cf. Ruling by the Transitory Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court on an appeal to vacate judgment, 3521-2012 July 24, 2013 (evidence file, volume XXI, helpful evidence, folio 14678). 286 Motion to vacate lodged by the Assistant Superior Prosecutor from the Second Specialized Office of Prosecution for Crimes of Corruption by Public Officials, October 29, 2012 (evidence file, helpful evidence, volume XXI, folios 14617 to 14665). 287