6 30. The petitioners say that in view of the existence of a number of acts of intimidation, on August 6, 1991, the Office of the Prosecutor for Crime Prevention requested the deputy governor of Huancavelica to order individual guarantees for the safety of the members of the council of elders of the community of Santa Barbara: Máximo Pérez Torres, Nicolás Hilario Huamán, and Lorenzo Quispe Huamán. 31. They say that on October 31, 1991, the local press published an announcement made by Senator Enrique Bernales Ballesteros, Chair of the Senate Special Committee on the Causes of Violence and Possible Pacification Solutions, in which the Ministry of Defense responded to the complaint lodged by the community members of Santa Barbara, recognizing that military personnel murdered 14 campesinos from Santa Barbara. The petitioners say that this was the first time that the Peruvian armed forces had admitted relatively promptly to having violated human rights. 32. They say that on November 8, 1991, the Huancavelica Technical Police, acting on a court order, detained the president and fiscal officer of the community of Santa Barbara, Nicolás Hilario Morán and Lorenzo Quispe Huamán, respectively, in the city of Huancavelica, for obstruction of justice as a result of having falsely charged the security forces with the detention/disappearance of persons who had not been detained or disappeared. The petitioners say that the Huancavelica superior court prosecutor himself confirmed to them by telephone that he had brought the complaint against the above community members. The petitioners noted that these detentions coincided with an on-site visit of the Inter-American Commission to Peru. The petitioners say that, subsequently, on November 12, 1991, both the president and the fiscal officer of the community of Santa Barbara were released without being informed of their exact legal situation. In addition, the petitioners say that on February 19, 1992, three armed military personnel (two lieutenants and one private) appeared at the Office of the Huancavelica Mixed Provincial Prosecutor, who had filed criminal charges against the political/military commander of Huancavelica for the events at Santa Barbara, and threatened him, saying that they were waiting for him in Lircay to “settle the score.” The Military Jurisdiction 33. According to the petitioners, the Peruvian government announced on October 31, 1991, that the Ministry of Defense had turned over to the military judicial authorities an army officer and five of his subordinates, who were charged with having committed excesses and murdered 14 members of the community of Santa Barbara in Huancavelica. The petitioners say that the document from the Ministry of Defense does not mention any of the victims by name and they, therefore, assumed that the Ministry was referring to the 14 community members whose detention was reported by the community of Santa Barbara on July 8, 1991. They say that none of the reports mentions the situation of Elihoref Huamaní Vergara, despite the fact that his detention/disappearance occurred on the same day as the other community members and in the same context. 34. They say that on November 26, 1991, the Ayacucho Permanent Military Tribunal (by official letter No. 422-PJ-JDP) served Viviano Hilario Mancha, Lorenzo Quispe Huamán, Moisés Hilario Quispe, Zósimo Hilario Quispe, Pascual Mancha Hilario, Nicolás Huamán Chumbes with summons to testify in the case against Army Lieutenant Javier Bendezú Vargas and others, for abuse of authority and crimes against life, the person, health, and other offenses, to the detriment of civilians. They say that all of the above summonsed persons, except for Zósimo Hilario Quispe, testified to the Ayacucho Military Tribunal in the city of Huancavelica. 35. The petitioners say that on February 5, 1992, Mr. Zósimo Hilario Quispe, who was, at once, the son, brother, brother-in-law, and uncle of some of the victims, presented a jurisdictional plea to the Peruvian Army’s Second Judicial District, arguing that the investigation concerned ordinary, not military, crimes. 36. According to the petitioners, on October 16, 1992, the Permanent Court-Martial of the Army's Second Judicial District returned a judgment in which it decided: