negligence. It adds that Mr. Rosadío Villavicencio filed an appeal challenging the verdict, which was resolved by final judgment of June 30, 1998, by the Supreme Council of Military Justice, on a motion for review, which held Mr. Rosadío liable for the crime of disobedience, and sentenced him to 28 months in prison. Later, the judgment of the Superior Council was annulled by the Supreme Council of Military Justice. The new judgment of the Consejo de Guerra Permanente convicted him of the crimes of disobedience, violating the duty and dignity of his office, falsity and negligence, and abuse of authority. Later, the Supreme Council, ruling on review by final judgment of June 30, 1998, convicted him only of disobedience. In this regard, the State asserts that “there have not been two criminal proceedings in the military courts, there was a single trial in which the principles and rights of the judicial function provided for in the Political Constitution have been applied, such as the right to appeal, the right to not be punished without judicial process, the right to reasoned rulings, and the principle of legality, among others.” 24. With respect to the proceedings in the regular jurisdiction, the State points out that the alleged victim, “in the full exercise of his right of defense, pursued the remedies he deemed advisable, such as the objection on grounds of nature of the act, a remedy whose purpose is to void the proceeding, based on the acts in question not being criminally justifiable.” The Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of San Martín in this case, by judgment of April 17, 1996, duly reasoned and justified, declared that objection to be unfounded, and sentenced Jorge Rosadío to six years imprisonment, and to pay a sum for civil reparations. The record was then forwarded to the Supreme Court on a motion for nullity. The Supreme Court chamber specialized in drug trafficking crimes, by final judgment of June 19, 1997, declared “there is no nullity in the judgment of April 17, 1996, and that there is nullity with respect to the penalty imposed; instead a penalty of 15 years imprisonment is imposed.” 25. The State also notes that Peruvian legislation allows for a dual process for public servants: the administrative proceeding for breach of the disciplinary rules, during the performance of one’s functions, and proceedings for civil liability in the criminal court. 26. The State concludes that it can be established that Mr. Jorge Rosadío Villavicencio “has been tried and convicted by the competent authorities of the Peruvian jurisdiction, in the context of the procedures provided for by the applicable criminal legislation and criminal procedure, in the military courts, with respect to the crimes committed 7