as they were committed in the line of service, because the shooting practice took place at the facilities of the military base, and noncommissioned officer Ilaquita Quispe was the instructor of that practice not only for the soldier in question, but also for the troops under his responsibility, or in other words he was performing his duties. Consequently, the crime involved was a crime in the course of duty, and comes exclusively under the jurisdiction of the military courts. 16. When the hearing to issue judgment was convened on August 19, 2004, the Military Court acquitted Juan Ilaquita Quispe. This decision was appealed by the military prosecutor, and at the present time it is in the judge’s chamber’s for review [a despacho para vista].2 17. The petitioner concludes that the Peruvian State violated Article 8 of the American Convention when it decided in favor of the military criminal court and assigned the trial to that jurisdiction, as it is not an impartial and competent tribunal. It further reiterates that Law 26926 of February 21, 1998 incorporated into the Peruvian Criminal Code Title XIV-A on crimes against humanity, including the crime of torture, which in turn states in its Article 5 that crimes of this sort are to be judged in the courts of the ordinary jurisdiction. B. The State 18. The State indicated that in general terms it agreed with the factual account of the acts that occurred at the military unit against Valdemir Quispialaya Vilcapoma, and with the judicial proceedings conducted in the ordinary courts and in the military courts.3 19. It stated that in accordance with the Organic Law of Military Justice, Article 4 of DecreeLaw 23201, the Supreme Court of Justice is the authority responsible for settling jurisdictional disputes that arise between the military courts and ordinary courts, and that the judgments it issues in these matters are unappealable, and the final recourse in the procedures followed by the petitioner. 20. The principal argument used by the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice to determine the jurisdiction was that the conduct of noncommissioned officer Juan IIaquita Quispe involved acts performed in his capacity as a noncommissioned officer in the Peruvian Army, in the line of duty and on a military base, and that such conduct therefore constitutes a crime in the course of duty, as it affects exclusively military legal interests and the disciplinary order of the Armed Forces, and should be referred to the military courts and the military code of justice. 21. In accordance with Article 139, paragraph 1, of the Political Constitution, Military Jurisdiction is an exception to the principle of the exclusivity and unity of the Judiciary, and it is restricted in nature and has constitutional limits pertaining to the functional activities of that jurisdiction. 22. The State of Peru points out that in a judgment issued by the Constitutional Court on August 24, 2004 regarding an unconstitutionality case brought by the Ombudsman’s or Public Defenders’ Office [Defensoría del Pueblo] against various articles of Law 24150, it found that violations of the jurisdiction of the military courts are violations of its own specific and relevant legal interests related to the existence, organization, operations, and fulfillment of the purposes of the military institution. It further stated that such a violation is a violation of the duty-related obligation that the agent was obliged to maintain, to fulfill, or not to fulfill. 23. The State contends that the author injured a legally protected military interest that implicates the functions constitutionally and legitimately assigned to the Armed Forces and the Police, while the agent was in active service and performing his military duties. These are requirements that must all be met at the time that the act occurs.4 2 3 4 Electronic message of January 19, 2003, from the petitioner. Report No 63-2004-JUS/CNDH-SE, received on October 4, 2004. I Background information. Id. II Considerations. 3