9 a) that, by means of its application, the Commission “attempts to undermine the principle of res judicata” by requesting that the trial before the Exclusive Military Court in which Cesti Hurtado was convicted for the crime of fraud against the State be declared null and void; b) that, in accordance with the provisions of articles 138 and 139(1) of the Political Constitution of Peru, the power to administer justice is an exclusive function of the State which emanates from the people; c) that if the Court were to accept that which the application puts forth, it would undermine the legal order of the Peruvian State and “destabilize current constitutional institutions such as the Exclusive Military Courts and the Civilian Courts, whose differences are resolved in accordance with proceedings established by Peruvian Law”; and it would transgress the Charter of the Organization of American States to indirectly involve other Member States in Peruvian affairs; d) that an institution composed of non Peruvians cannot question Peru’s legal order, which was restructured as of 1992; and e) that in the redaction of the report in this case, the Commission violated elementary legal concepts that guarantee the sovereignty of States, and particularly the power to punish. Finally, the State made certain reflections about the political affiliation of the defenders of Mr. Cesti Hurtado and stated that their radical opposition to “the Government of the Constitutional President of the Republic is definitely known.” 36. The Commission, for its part, argued: a) that this objection is a “restatement” of the sixth and tenth preliminary objections in the Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case, for which reason it refers to the observations made by the Commission in that case “when relevant.” (supra 29); b) that the objection of res judicata contradicts the objection of exhaustion of domestic remedies; non c) that the only judgment which has the character of res judicata in this case is that which was rendered in the habeas corpus proceeding initiated by Mr. Cesti Hurtado; and d) that the requirement of the prerequisite of exhaustion of domestic remedies in the American Convention, demonstrates that the objection of res judicata cannot be raised in a proceeding before the Court. Moreover, in accordance with the principles of international law, “judicial judgments can be grounds for the international responsibility of the State and, therefore, the ‘object’ of an international judicial proceeding.” With regard to the State’s allegations concerning the political affiliation of Mr. Cesti Hurtado’s defenders, the Commission argued that those statements “constitute a clear impairment of the principles of equality, non discrimination, and freedom of