CCPR/C/115/D/2358/2014 Commander-in-Chief of the Army in 1978; and that the offence of homicide was timebarred given that it was not considered a crime against humanity. The author further argued that he could not be held responsible for the events on the basis of the notion of “indirect commission”, since this notion requires there to have been deliberation prior to the offence being committed and that no such deliberation could be deduced from the evidence submitted. 2.11 On 26 August 2010, the Appeal Court took detailed note of the evidence adduced in the trial and confirmed the author ’s criminal liability for the crime of homicide under especially aggravated circumstances in repeated offences. However, it revoked the first-instance ruling regarding the extent of the author ’s involvement and instead found him guilty of being a co-perpetrator of the offences tried. As to the calculation of the period of limitation for the crime of homicide, the Court concluded that, as a general rule, the extension of the period of limitation by one third was applicable under article 123 of the Criminal Code. 2.12 The author filed an appeal in cassation with the Supre me Court and repeated his claims. On 22 August 2011, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in cassation. The author submits that domestic remedies have thereby been exhausted. The complaint 3.1 The author claims to be the victim of violations by the State party of articles 2, 6, 7, 9, 14, 15 and 26 of the Covenant. 3.2 The author refers to Act No. 15848, which stipulates that “the exercise of punitive power has expired”. He maintains that the Supreme Court has upheld the Act’s constitutionality in various rulings and that the electorate has ratified its validity twice in referendums. However, by administrative act the author was denied the application of the law to his case. Furthermore, the judicial proceedings brought by the courts of the State party against members of the Armed Forces failed to observe the basic principles of criminal law, such as the applicability of the statute of limitations to criminal offences, the non-retroactivity of criminal law and the notions of res judicata and non bis in idem. In his case the evidence submitted at trial was inconsistent and his sentence was based on testimony from biased witnesses and information from one-sided newspaper research and biased publications, in violation of due process and the right to an impartial tribunal. The evidence was collected with no regard for judicial guarantees, no oversight by his counsel and no certainty as to its authenticity or provenance. He claims that at every hearing the same witnesses appeared — all of them persons previously detained by the Armed Forces. The author adds that the burden of proof was reversed and he was allowed neither to submit evidence nor to examine the file before being deprived of his liberty. Order No. 7777, which was a public pronouncement intended to maintain the cohesion of the army command, was treated as if it were a confession. The author also maintains that the courts failed to take account of the provision of article 10 of the Criminal Code governing the principle of territoriality, which exclude s the application of Uruguayan law to offences committed in other countries. Major errors were also made with regard to the author’s functions and military rank at the time of the events. The author also asserts that, in the majority of proceedings against military and police officers, the prosecutor in charge of the case had openly expressed views opposed to the Armed Forces and was not able to exercise her functions independently and impartially. 3.3 The author claims that the cases brought against him ar e time-barred under articles 117 and 119 of the Criminal Code, and that the judge should have declined to hear them and the prosecutor should have sought their dismissal. However, the State party’s courts arbitrarily determined that the period of limitatio n should begin to run from 1 March 1985, despite the fact that there was no legal provision to that effect. GE.15-21845 5/11