3 them, excluding them from the proceedings and acting as if the only disappearance in Manyacc were that of Santiago Antezana.” 12. The petitioners submitted copies of resolutions of the judicial authorities involved in the criminal proceedings concerning the disappearance of Santiago Antezana and excerpts from the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which records that from 1983 to 1984 several inhabitants of the Manyacc hamlet in the District of Anta were detained by members of the peasant patrols (rondas campesinas) and disappeared after having been taken to the Cajatambo CounterInsurgency Base, in the department of Huancavelica. They pointed out that although the disappearance of Santiago Antezana Cueto allegedly took place in May 1984, the corresponding investigations were still at the preliminary stage. B. The State 13. In its initial briefs the State maintained that the alleged forced disappearance of Santiago Antezana Cueto was denounced by his relatives in May and June 1984, but that only on May 27, 1992 did they go to the offices of the Special Prosecutor for Ombudsman and Human Rights Matters (FEDPDH as in its Spanish acronym). Peru stressed that the petition was transmitted by the Inter-American Commission on November 3, 1999, “after more than 15 years had elapsed since the alleged facts and more than 7 years since the petitioner had approached the FEDPDH”. In that respect, it argued that there has been “more than enough time for the petitioners to have invoked the exceptions referred to in Article 46(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights and that, since they had not done so, the time allowed for presentation of the petition, under Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention, had expired.” The State averred that the family members of the alleged victim did not file habeas corpus writs, even though Law Nº 23506 (Law on Habeas Corpus and Amparo) was in force at the time of the alleged facts. It added that “since no timely use had been made of a habeas corpus writ, more than 15 years ago, the petition was manifestly inadmissible in light of Article 47(c) of the American Convention.” 14. In a communication received by the IACHR on May 13, 2011, the State asserted that the petitioners had not submitted new communications for several years and requested that the IACHR archive the complaint pursuant to Article 48(1)(b) of the Convention. In subsequent communications, it sent general information about efforts undertaken by the Office of the Attorney General to exhume and identify human remains and investigate cases of forced disappearance. It mentioned that in 2001, it had issued Internal Directive Nº 011-MP-FN, regulating “investigations by public prosecutors following the discovery of sites with human remains associated with gave violations of human rights.” It added that, through resolution Nº 1262-2003-MP-FN of the Attorney General’s Office adopted on August 13, 2003, the Specialized Forensic Team attached to the Institute of Forensic Medicine had been established and put in charge of forensic investigation in cases of disappearances occurred during the internal armed conflict. 15. The State provided details regarding the facilities, number of professionals hired, and the work of the Specialized Forensic Team. It stated that, using the resources of the Office of the Attorney General and international cooperation funding, a modern Forensic Investigations Laboratory had been built in Ayacucho, which was being used exclusively to look for and identify the human remains of disappeared persons. It claimed that between 2008 and 2010 the Specialized Forensic Team had managed to recover the human remains of 1,047 people and identify 804. 669 remains had been returned to family members. It mentioned that, with a view to effective prosecution of the grave violations of human rights that had occurred during the internal armed conflict, the Office of the Attorney General had established a subsystem of Public Prosecutor’s Offices Specializing in Crimes against Humanity, comprising three Higher Public Prosecutor’s Offices in Lima and nine “Supraprovincial” public prosecutor’s offices in the departments hardest hit by political violence, such as Ayacucho, Huancavelica and Huánuco. 16. The State averred that “since the Inter-American Court of Justice” had handed down judgment in the Barrios Altos case, the obligation to investigate, punish, and try had been enforced more effectively than it may have been in the past.” It pointed out that said judgment reflected “nationwide