48 216. The IACHR observes that the Supreme Court of Justice of Lima based its reasoning on the fact that the commandos who participated in Operation Chavín de Huántar acted “in the discharge of their duties,” under orders, in the context of a state of emergency. It also determined that this reasoning was supported by several articles of the Military Code in effect at the time of the events and by Law 24.150, in light of Article 173 of the Political Constitution of Peru, which provided that: in case of a duty-related crime, members of the Armed Forces and the National Police are subject to the respective jurisdiction and to the Code of Military Justice, and this provision is also applicable to civilians for the crimes of Treason against the Fatherland and Terrorism. … 217. In this regard, the Inter-American Court has established that: The possibility that the military courts prosecute any soldier who is accused of an ordinary crime, for the mere fact of being in service, implies that the jurisdiction is granted due to the mere circumstance of being a soldier. In that sense, even when they crime is committed by soldiers while there are still in service or based on acts of same, this is not enough for their knowledge to 214 correspond to the military criminal justice. 218. In this sense, the Commission observes that despite finding that the facts in the instant case could amount to crimes against humanity, the Supreme Court determined that they should be taken up by the military court in relation to the soldiers involved in the operation. Moreover, this interpretation neglected to clearly and unambiguously identify which of the crimes are considered to be service-related by establishing the direct and proximal relationship with the military function or with the infringement of 215 legally protected interests inherent to the military system. 219. In this regard, the IACHR considers it relevant to point out that during the public hearing held in 2005, the State reported that in 2004, the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court delivered judgments establishing that human rights violations are not service-related crimes. This notwithstanding, the IACHR notes that the State did not explain exactly how this jurisprudence might have influenced the facts in the instant case. 220. The Commission concludes, therefore, that the State failed to fulfill the obligation contained in Article 2 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 8 and 25 of that treaty, by extending the competence of the military jurisdiction to crimes that had no direct relationship with military discipline or legally protected interests inherent to the military. 4. Right to personal integrity (Article 5 of the Convention), in relation to Article 1(1) of that instrument to the detriment of the victims’ next of kin 221. In the Commission’s view, the facts surrounding the extrajudicial execution of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez, Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva and Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza also constitute violations of Article 5 of the American Convention to the detriment of their next of kin. In this regard, while the Inter-American Commission did not pronounce on the alleged violation of this article in its admissibility report, the petitioners raised it after the admissibility report had been issued, besides which, the allegation is substantiated in the information and documentation provided by the parties during the processing of the instant case, with respect to which the State has had the opportunity to defend itself and submit its pleadings. Therefore, in application of the principle of iura novit curia, the Commission shall articulate its considerations on this point. 214 Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. November 23, 2009, para. 286. 215 Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. November 23, 2009, para. 284. See also Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, para. 55, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 126.