30. On November 5, 1992, the State informed the Commission that the Office of the Attorney General had reported taking several steps into the ongoing investigation of the incident but, to date, had obtained no results; consequently, the investigation was continuing. 31. On December 30, 1992, the State informed the Commission that the Ministry of the Interior had stated that the Chosica police had arrested neither Dora Oyague Fierro nor other students of La Cantuta University, and on January 6, 1993, it noted that after a number of investigations, the Department of Public Prosecutions had been unable to identify the persons responsible for the incident but that it was still investigating. 32. On October 7, 1993, the State alleged that the civilian provincial prosecutor dealing with the incident had disqualified itself and had referred the investigation of the case to the Supreme Council of Military Justice’s War Division. 33. On February 5, 1996, the State stated that in proceedings No. 157-V-93, brought against Maj. Gen. Juan Rivero Lazo and others in connection with Hugo Sánchez Muñoz and others, the Supreme Council of Military Justice, by means of a final judgment dated May 3, 1994, had ordered Maj. Santiago Martín Rivas, Maj. Carlos Pichilingue Guevara, and Technicians 3rd Class Julio Chuqui Aguirre, Nelson Carbajal García, and Jesús Sosa Saavedra to pay, jointly with the Peruvian State, a civil indemnification to the victims’ families; however, since the embargo placed on their salaries was no sufficient to cover that payment, the Ministry of Defense had deposited the amount of the indemnification, equal to three million new sols, which were being paid to the victim’s relatives. IV. ANALYSIS The Commission proceeds to analyze the requirements for a petition to be admissible set forth in the American Convention, as follows: A. Competence ratione materiae, ratione personae, and ratione temporis of the Commission 34. As regards its competence over the matter of the complaint, the Commission notes that the events related by the petitioner and not disputed by the State indicate that the murders of the professor and students from the Enrique Guzmán y Valle National University were committed by military agents of the Peruvian State. The massacre was investigated and, as a result of that investigation, certain individuals were tried. As a result of those proceedings, the Supreme Council of Military Justice handed down a final judgment on May 3, 1994, in which the following members of the Peruvian Army were found guilty and convicted: Major General Juan Rivero Lazo, Cavalry Colonel Federico Augusto Navarro Pérez, Infantry Captain José Adolfo Velarde Astete, Engineering Corps Majors Santiago Enrique Martín Rivas and Carlos Eliseo Pichilingue Guevara, and Technicians 3rd Class Julio Chuqui Aguirre, Nelson Rogelio Carbajal García, and Jesús Antonio Sosa Saavedra. This judgment also ordered indemnification to be paid to the families of the murdered individuals, to be paid jointly by the convicts and the Peruvian State. Following that sentence, the petitioner has not questioned the Commission about the appropriateness of the punishment imposed on the person convicted or about the amount or the payment of the indemnification granted to the victims’ families. Nevertheless, the petitioner maintains that Peru violated international obligations enshrined in the American Convention by enacting Amnesty Laws Nos. 26479 and 26492 and by enforcing their provisions to release the individuals convicted of the La Cantuta massacre. 35. The Commission notes that the aforesaid amnesty laws did in fact lead to the liberation of the only persons convicted for participating in the La Cantuta massacre. Thus, although the incident was investigated by the Peruvian State, as a result of which the individuals found guilty by the courts were convicted, the Commission has competence over the matter of the complaint in order to determine whether the effects of enforcing said amnesty laws constituted violations of the obligations assumed by Peru under the American Convention. In this regard, the Inter-American Court has stated that: 6