national pacification. The State alleges that, according to a report of March 25, 1996, the petitioner had made a statement at the offices of DECOTE on October 15, 1994, when he requested recourse to the provisions of Decree Law No. 25499 by preparing a statement to that effect.6 The State further alleges that the decision of November 4, 1994, the decision of the Criminal Provincial Prosecutor of Huánuco exempting him from punishment and the decision of the competent judge of November 9, 1994, who decided to close the file on the case, all demonstrate the lawfulness of the proceeding.7 28. The State also referred to the letter No. 1453-95-IN-010600000000 of July 10, 1995 addressed to the President of the Supreme Court of Peru, according to which the investigation of the complaint of the petitioner showed that the official of the National Police of Peru, Head of the JECOTE-Huánuco, was not liable since he had acted in accordance with the relevant laws and since all the police investigations had been carried out in the presence of the representative of the Office of the Attorney General. Consequently, the State argues that there was no functional responsibility of the members of the police force who participated in the acts under investigation. 29. With regard to the admissibility of the petition, the State alleged that the petitioner had not exhausted the remedies available under domestic law.8 The State alleged that the petitioner did not file an application for a writ of habeas corpus, criminal proceedings against the military, police and political authorities allegedly implicated, a recourse or action for protection (amparo) against the decision of the Senior Prosecutor approving his recourse to the Law on Repentance, or civil proceedings for extra-contractual liability. It argued that the Peruvian legal system provided for such actions, that they were appropriate, and that the petitioner did not claim that he had been prevented from using or exhausting the remedies available under domestic law.9 30. With regard to the effectiveness of the remedy of habeas corpus, the State alleged that, while the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has established that the remedies under domestic law may be presumed to be ineffective in certain circumstances, these circumstances were not present in late 1994 when the facts are alleged to have taken place, since a decline in the levels of political violence was recorded at the time compared with the period from 1980 to 1992. The State argued further that, in accordance with Article 200.6 of the Peruvian Constitution of 1993, the declaration of any emergency regime does not suspend the right of private individuals to file an application for constitutional protection in respect of those rights not directly affected by the suspension. 31. Concerning the effectiveness of the criminal actions, the State observed with respect to the petitioner's argument on the Amnesty Law that, since the complaint refers to alleged violations of the norms of due legal process that took place after a lawful detention, the applicability of Act No. 26479 did not in any way impair the right of the complainant to go before the organs of national jurisdiction.10 32. In its note of December 26, 1996, the Peruvian State alleged that the petitioner had filed his complaint after the period provided for in the Convention. The State argued that, since the petitioner had not exhausted the remedies available under domestic law, the period should be counted from the time that he was detained, that is, from October 16, 1994. Since the complaint was dated January 3, 1996, it requests that the Commission declare the petition inadmissible. IV. Consideration by the Commission 6 Note by the State of August 6, 2002 to which a copy of the statement is attached. 7 Note by the State of October 15, 2001. 8 Reply of the State dated May 6, 1996. 9 Idem and observations of the State of December 26, 1996. 10 Idem. 5