2 6. On April 19, 2011, the IACHR requested updated information to the petitioners and stressed that if it did not receive a reply it could consider archiving the case, pursuant to Article 48(1)(b) of the Convention. Subsequent to that date, the State presented new submissions on May 13, August 4, and November 29, 2011. For their part, the petitioners filed additional briefs on July 5 and September 15, 2011. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. The petitioners 7. The petitioners averred that between 1974 and 1984 the alleged victim lived in Lima, during which time he sporadically visited his family in the hamlet of Manyacc, district of Anta, province of Acobamba, department of Huancavelica. They said that in April1984 the alleged victim went to the aforementioned district to attend the funeral of his father, Abraham Antezana Espeza. They stated that on May 7, 1984, four members of a peasant patrol pertaining to the local self-defense committee arrested Santiago Antezana Cueto’s uncle, Mr. Máximo Antezana Espeza, accusing him of having collaborated with the irregular armed insurgent group Shining Path. When he went to defend his uncle, the alleged victim was also detained, and both were handed over to Army soldiers and taken to the Acobamba Counter-Insurgency Base, at that time under the command of Army Captain José Antonio Esquivel Mora. 8. The petitioners submitted as background information that on May 14, 1984 another uncle of the alleged victim, Mr. Emiliano Antezana Espeza, was arrested by soldiers and taken to the abovementioned military base. They did not provide further information and did not named Mr. Emiliano Antezana Espeza as a victim. The petitioners maintained that on that same day Mr. Máximo Antezana Espeza was released and complained that both he and his nephew, Santiago Antezana Cueto, had been tortured and obliged to dig graves. They added that while making inquiries with the inhabitants of the Manyacc hamlet, the alleged victims’ relatives discovered that another seven persons had disappeared after being taken to the Acobamba Counter-Insurgency Base. They added that on September 11, 1993, Mr. Máximo Antezana Espeza was murdered in the province of Chanchamayo, department of Junín, allegedly in reprisal for having denounced the arbitrary arrests, torture and disappearances in the Manyacc hamlet. 9. According to the petitioners’ allegation, on July 23, 1984, the relatives of Santiago Antezana Cueto denounced his disappearance before the Third Directorate of Complaints and Denunciations of the Office of the Attorney General (Fiscalía de la Nación). On September 13, 1984, another criminal accusation was filed with the Attorney General. The petitioners stated that on March 15, 1985, the family members of the alleged victim requested the Attorney General to issue a criminal indictment against those responsible for what happened in the Acobamba Counter-Insurgency Base. 10. The petitioners submitted copies of the complaints lodged by the common-law spouse of the alleged victim, Ms. Nelly Calderón Navarro, and other family members before the Human Rights Commission of the Congress in August 1985, the Human Rights Office of the Office of the Public Prosecutor in March and May 1985, in March 1991 and on June 20, 2001. They claimed that, despite those complaints, the judicial authorities furnished no information regarding the investigations possibly being conducted. They argued that the Peruvian State is responsible for violating the rights established in Articles 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 25 of the American Convention. 11. Through a communication received on July 5, 2011, the petitioners reported that on November 25, 2005, the Human Rights Commission (COMISEDH) filed a criminal accusation with the Special Criminal Investigation Attorney’s Office in Acobamba. They stated that on July 31, 2009, the Prosecution Service charged Army officer José Antonio Esquivel Mora, alias “scorpion”, for the crime of forced disappearance. They said that the only injured party referred to in the internal proceedings was Santiago Antezana Cueto, with no mention of the other persons alleged to have been victims of forced disappearance in the Acobamba Counter-Insurgency Base from 1983 to 1984. They added that “despite the evidence and the fact that the first complaints mention other victims, the Peruvian State disregarded

Select target paragraph3