2 1997, the State itself later ordered the criminal proceedings to be reopened in keeping with the judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Barrios Altos case on March 14, 2001. 5. The State argues that the petitioners have failed from the outset to observe the universally recognized subsidiary nature of the supranational system of protection and, as a result, have not exhausted domestic remedies. It says that the criminal proceeding has been ongoing since 2001, that efforts are still underway to locate the absent defendants, and that in 2008 a new investigation into the alleged offenses was opened by the Huancavelica Supra Provincial Criminal Prosecutor's Office. The State submits that the fact that a final outcome has not yet been reached in the case is not sufficient grounds to brand the State a promoter of impunity. In conclusion, the State considers that the situation of this case as it currently stands is not covered by any of the exceptions provided in Article 46(2) of the American Convention. 6. Having analyzed the available information, assessed the procedure, and applied Article 36(3) of its Rules of Procedure as they were then in force in order to defer a decision on admissibility, the Commission has found that the admissibility requirements set forth in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention have been met, and it concludes that the State is responsible for violation of the obligation to ensure: 1) the rights to personal liberty, humane treatment, life, and juridical personality under Articles 7, 5, 4 and 3 of the American Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 1(1) of that instrument, to the detriment of the 15 victims in the case; 2) the rights of the child in accordance with Article 19 of the American Convention to the detriment of the seven children: Yessenia, Miriam and Edith Osnayo Hilario; Wilmer Hilario Carhuapoma, Alex Jorge Hilario, and the brothers Raúl and Héctor Hilario Guillén; 3) the right to a family enshrined in Article 17 of the American Convention to the detriment of the victims in the case and their next-of-kin; 4) the right to a fair trial and judicial protection recognized in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, Articles I and III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, and Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the InterAmerican Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, to the detriment of the disappeared persons and their nextof-kin; and 5) the right to integrity to de detriment of the victim’s family members. II. PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION 7. The IACHR received the petition on July 26, 1991, and registered it as number 10.932, in keeping with its practice at the time. On August 1, 1991, the Commission transmitted the petition to the State and gave it 90 days to present its comments. The Peruvian State presented its response in notes dated September 23 and November 4, 1991, which were forwarded to the petitioners in a communication of December 16, 1991. The petitioners submitted observations in a communication of February 20, 1992, which was conveyed to the State on March 24, 1992. The petitioners requested the IACHR to grant precautionary measures in a communication dated March 11, 1992, which was forwarded to the State on March 24, 1992. On July 21, 1992, the Commission reiterated the request to the State for information made on March 24, 1992. The State presented its observations in a note dated September 21, 1992, which were transmitted to the petitioners on November 11, 1992, with the request that they submit their observations within 45 days. 8. The State presented information in a communication of February 24, 1993. The petitioners submitted observations in a communication of June 8, 1993, which was transmitted to the State on June 24, 1993. On July 2, 1993, the Commission sent a note to the State confirming receipt of the communication of February 24, 1993. Mrs. Luz Roque Montesillo submitted information in a communication dated October 5, 1993, which was relayed to the State in a communication dated December 24, 1996. Subsequently, on January 10, 1997, the IACHR instructed the State to ignore the above communication as it concerned information supplied by a person who was not a party in case 10.932. The petitioners presented information on November 18, 1997, which was conveyed to the State on December 11, 1997. The State submitted observations in a communication dated February 5, 1998, which was relayed to the petitioners on February 25, 1998. 9. On May 4, 2000, the IACHR requested the petitioners and the State to provide updated information and placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to reaching a friendly settlement in the case. The State requested an extension in a communication dated June 16, 2000. The petitioners requested an