9 2005. The petitioners say that the State could furnish the IACHR with the above official letter, as it is part of the record of the internal judicial proceedings and not in the hands of the petitioners. They note that, despite other requests made more recently to the Army to say whether or not the above military personnel are still active, they have received no further information. Mr. Oscar Alberto Carrera Gonzáles was placed at liberty in early 2010 because the time limit for his detention expired. 49. The petitioners say that in 2008 the Office of the Huancavelica Supra-Provincial Criminal Prosecutor opened an investigation into Simón Fidel Palante for the crime of genocide to the detriment of Francisco Hilario Quispe and 14 others (Case No. 61-2008). They say that in 2008 and 2009 Statements were taken from a number of relatives of the victims and, from March 1 to 8, 2010, an exhumation was conducted to recover the remains of the victims at Misteriosa mine. They say that, subsequently, from September 20 to 22, 2010, blood and saliva samples were taken from the victims’ next-of-kin for the purposes of DNA analysis, and witness Statements were obtained from other members of the Escorpio patrol. 50. The petitioners argue that the alleged offenses constitute, inter alia, violations of the rights to life (Article 4 of the Convention), humane treatment (Article 5 of the Convention), personal liberty (Article 7 of the Convention), and juridical personality (Article 3 of the Convention) of the 15 people who were illegally detained and then forcibly “disappeared.” They also argue that, given that seven of the alleged victims were children at the time of the events, the State has also violated Article 19 of the Convention. The petitioners further charge violation of Articles 1, 8, and 6 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture with regard to all 15 victims. The petitioners argue that the impunity that still surrounds the alleged offenses, which occurred almost 20 years ago, and the faults in due process in the course of the investigations amount to violations of Articles 2, 8, and 25 of the American Convention and Article I of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. 51. The petitioners mention that the facts alleged in the instant case were the subject of an investigation by Peru’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (hereinafter “CVR”). Nonetheless, they say, the State has not acknowledged in an international proceeding its responsibility for the illegal detention and subsequent forced disappearance of the 15 members of the community of Santa Barbara, even though there are several documents in which the State accepts that the facts occurred and has not disputed the detention and ensuing disappearance of the 15 alleged victims. 52. As to admissibility, the petitioners argue that several of the exceptions to the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies contained in Article 46(2) of the American Convention apply in the instant case. In this connection, they note with respect to the first investigations that the remedies sought were ineffective and that they were subsequently prevented from exhausting them by the amnesty laws in force since 1995. They argue that although two criminal trials are currently underway, neither of them has concluded, despite the fact that the events occurred almost 20 years ago, which constitutes an unwarranted delay in processing those remedies. 53. The petitioners argue that the State authorities failed to respond to most of the complaints initially presented by the victims and their next-of-kin, including two habeas corpus petitions filed for Elihoref Huamaní Vergara by his father with the lower courts of Lircay and Huancavelica. They say that only the complaint lodged on November 29, 1991, by Zósimo Hilario Quispe led to the opening of an investigation and a subsequent oral trial, which was closed as a result of the enactment of Amnesty Law 26479. They say that in the instant case the procedural activity and initiative of the relatives of the victims is demonstrated by the fact that they filed all the complaints and invoked all the remedies available and have persistently followed the case with the aim of obtaining justice for the violation of the rights of their loved ones. 54. The petitioners claim that in the instant case there have been various violations of fair trial guarantees, such as destruction of evidence and negligence in the custody thereof, obstruction of the investigation due to threats to justice operators, and lack of due diligence in the proceeding. The petitioners say that in the time between the commission of the crimes and the beginning of the first investigations, the members of the army took it upon themselves to destroy evidence at the scene of the crime.