6 nullity” in the order appealed regarding the defendants Manuel Santiago Arotuma Valdivia, Carlos Manuel Depaz Briones, and Juan Fernando Aragón Guibovich. In what refers to the defendant Juan Carlos Mejía León, on June 30, 2008 the Supreme Court declared, by majority, that “there was no nullity” in the judgment of the National Criminal Chamber that convicted him. In this last decision, the Supreme Court established that in the crime of forced disappearance of persons “the testimonial evidence and especially, the substitutes of evidentiary means, such as indicia, circumstantial evidence, and presumptions acquire great importance since this form of repression is characterized by its intention to suppress any element that will lead to the verification of the disappearance and the victim’s fate.” Similarly, regarding the application of the criminal definition of forced disappearance, the Supreme Court established that “since this is a permanent crime, it will be understood as committed under the validity of the new Criminal Code and its stipulations will be applied. Even though in constitutional criminal legal matters, the general principal of ‘lex previa’ (according to which the prohibitive provision shall be prior to the criminal act) shall prevail, the situation contemplated in the recount made is of continuity in a criminal activity that is still occurring, since and as long as, the illegality of the behavior persists or it is an action prolonged in time and that has been regulated by a new law […]. In this sense, it must be specified that if the accused parties have carried out the criminal behavior that results in the crime, which has a continuous nature, while in force the new law that regulates it, there is no doubt that this most recent law is the one that shall be applied, because being the new criminal regulations in force, the active subjects of the crime have performed all the actions referred to in the criminal description of the precept, without this implying any type of retroactivity ad malam partem”. 9. That the State considers that based on the previously mentioned decisions of the Supreme Court of Justice of Perú “it has complied with the final pending matter of the judgment on reparations […] issued on November 27, 1998, thus […] it request[ed] the filing of process 10,733 and the notification of that decision to the parties.” 10. That the representatives indicated that “the decision of the National Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Lima of March 20, 2006 marks a milestone in the prosecution of grave violations of human rights in Perú, and especially of the crime of forced disappearance. This ruling is fundamental for this and other cases that will be prosecuted in the future since despite [the fact] that the acts object of the process were initially defined as the crime of kidnapping, which evidently did not correspond to the specific nature and characteristics of the crime, the Criminal Chamber [decided] to issue a conviction for the commission of the crime of forced disappearance. The Chamber’s ruling is decisive, upon considering that it is not only facing a multi-offensive crime, since it infringes and affects several juridical rights and even life itself, but also when it states that since the remains of Ernesto Castillo Páez have not yet been located, his forced disappearance is a crime that is up to this date still being executed.” Likewise, they indicated that the final decision adopted by the Supreme Court of Lima on June 30, 2008 “constitutes an important contribution in matters of the evidentiary assessment in crimes against human rights and especially in crimes of forced disappearance. [Because] it reaffirms and develops the usefulness and value of circumstantial evidence as an instrument used to help determine the criminal responsibility of the accused parties.” Despite the aforementioned, the representatives indicated that the State has not complied with its obligation to repair since it has not handed over the remains of Ernesto Castillo Páez to his next of kin. They mentioned that “the Perúvian State reuses to comply

Select target paragraph3