5 Magistrate’s Court on July 12, 1991, as a result of which the magistrate determined to go to the scene on July 14, 1991, in order to proceed with the removal of the bodies. 23. The petitioners say that on July 14, 1991, 18 members of the community of Santa Barbara made their way to Misteriosa mine to take part, along with the examining magistrate, in the removal of the bodies. They say that when neared the mine they were met by a group of armed individuals in civilian clothes, who prevented them from reaching the place where the bodies were allegedly situated. They say that, after questioning them, the armed individuals identified themselves as soldiers from San Genaro Military Base. They claim that the soldiers kept them there from 10:30 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. and that upon letting them go forced them to return to their communities. They say that the examining magistrate never reached the mine and, therefore, the removal of the corpses was never carried out. 24. According to petitioners, while the community members were being detained on July 14, 1991, they heard "three dynamite blasts.” They say that the president of the community of Santa Barbara presented a complaint to the Minister of Defense on July 16, 1991, alleging the detention and disappearance of 14 people, including seven children. 25. They say that the removal of the corpses was finally carried out by the Huancavelica examining magistrate on July 18, 1991. They note that in the course of the procedure none of the bodies that Mr. Viviano Hilario Mancha had reportedly seen were found; rather, there were fragments of skin, dried blood, burnt clothing, plaited fabrics, part of a foot, a tongue, and some bones, as well as 16 sticks of dynamite and fuses scattered around. 26. The petitioners say that upon returning to the city of Huancavelica on July 18, 1991, the Technical Police arrested community members Viviano Hilario Mancha, Zósimo Hilario Quispe, Moisés Hilario Quispe, Pascual Mancha Hilario, Lorenzo Quispe Huamán, Bonifacio Cusi Huamaní, and Nicolás Huamán Chumbes; all were released on July 19, 1991, except for the last two, who were held for several days more. 27. As for Elihoref Huamaní Vergara, who was detained by an army patrol while walking with his father on July 4, 1991, the petitioners say that Alejandro Huamaní Robles (his father) sought information about his son's whereabouts from the Minister of Defense on July 16, 1991, and from the commanders of Huancavelica and Lircay Military Bases on July 18, 1991, but failed to receive any response. Mr. Huamaní also reported the incident to the Office of the Huancavelica Provincial Prosecutor for Crime Prevention on July 18, 1991, and reiterated the complaint on July 23, 1991, to the Office of the Special Attorney of the Ombudsman in Lima, presenting it in writing on August 2, 1991. They also note that on July 18, 1991, Alejandro Huamaní Robles filed for a writ of habeas corpus with Lircay and Huancavelica the Magistrate’s Courts, respectively. The petitioners say that Huancavelica Examining Magistrate's Court refused the petition on July 22, 1991. That decision was appealed on August 5, 1991; however, as yet, the outcome of the appeal is unknown. The petitioners say that Lircay Examining Magistrate's Court did not respond to the habeas corpus petition presented. 28. The petitioners hold that on July 22, 1991, the Huancavelica Mixed Provincial Prosecutor's Office reported to the Office of the Huancavelica Special Prosecutor for Crime Prevention on the procedure carried out on July 18, 1991, and that the human remains found were forwarded to the Technical Police and the medical examiner (Official letter No. 467-91-MP-FPM-HVCA). 29. The petitioners mention that on July 10, 1991, the daughter of the Prosecutor for Crime Prevention sustained a bullet wound in the mouth without fatal consequences, and that on July 28, 1991, Inés Sinchitullo Barboza, the official from the Office of the Attorney General in charge of preparing the report from the Office of the Prosecutor for Crime Prevention on the steps taken by the prosecutor's office in connection with the instant case to the Assistant Supreme Court Criminal Prosecutor in charge of the Office of the Ombudsman, was the target of an attack with explosives.