5 not afford due process of law for the protection of the right in question, or if the alleged victim has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law, or if there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. 24. The precedents established by the Commission indicate that whenever an ex officio prosecutable crime is committed, the State is obliged to institute and pursue criminal proceedings and that, in such cases, this is the suitable channel to clarify the facts, prosecute the responsible parties, establish appropriate criminal penalties, and make possible other means of reparation. The facts described by the petitioners concerning the alleged forced disappearance of Santiago Antezana Cueto, under Peruvian law, constitute criminal actions whose investigation and prosecution should be instituted by the State on its own initiative. 25. The information presented by the parties indicates that the alleged forced disappearance of Santiago Antezana Cueto was denounced before the Office of the Attorney General in July 23 and September 13, 1984, March 15, 1985, March 1991 and June 20, 2001, without his family members being informed of any outcomes. On November 25, 2004, the organization COMISEDH filled a complaint before the Specialized Prosecution Office of Acobamba. In its initial submissions the State asserted that the alleged victim’s relatives had not pursued the complaints filled between 1984 and 1991. However, it acknowledged the existence of complaints filled before the judicial authorities during the aforementioned period. 26. The IACHR takes note of the fact that the investigations of the complaints lodged by the relatives of the alleged victim may have been hindered by the adoption of Law No. 26479 on June 15, 1995. Article 1 of this law granted “general amnesty to military, police, or civilian personnel […] investigated, reported, indicted, prosecuted, or convicted for common and military crimes […] for all actions derived from or arising upon occasion or as a consequence of the struggle against terrorism […] 2 between May of 1980 and the date of this law’s enactment.” On July 2, 1995 the Democratic Constituent Congress adopted Law No. 26492, specifying that the amnesty law was not subject to judicial review, so that its issuance was exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Legislative Branch. According to information publicly available, following the judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Barrios 3 Altos case, the Judicial Branch declared Amnesty Laws Nos. 26479 and 26492 to be without effect. This made it possible to prosecute and punish crimes committed by state agents in the context of the domestic armed conflict, but only starting in late 2001. 27. The information in the case file indicates that the investigation into the alleged forced disappearance of Mr. Santiago Antezana Cueto began only in late 2004; more than 20 years after the presumed facts had occurred and were denounced. This information submitted by the parties indicates that the criminal proceedings into the disappearance of the alleged victims currently remain in the preliminary stage. 28. In the merits stage the Commission will examine whether the State provided a remedy with due guarantees to the relatives of the alleged victim vis-à-vis the obligations set forth in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. However, at the present stage of the proceedings, and without prejudging the merits of the matter, the IACHR finds that the passage of over 27 years since the alleged forced disappearance of Santiago Antezana Cueto, without his whereabouts being established and without a final judgment establishing what happened and punishing those responsible, are sufficient to conclude that there has been an unwarranted delay in the sense of Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention. C. Time allowed for presentation of the petition 2 Law No. 26479 of June 14, 1992, available on the website of the Congress of the Republic of Peru: www.congreso.gob.pe/ntley/Imagenes/Leyes/26479.pdf. 3 I/A Court H.R., Barrios Altos v. Peru Case. Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits. (Art. 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of September 3, 2001. Series C, No. 83.