32 take the content of that report as proven fact, and any such relationship is not self-evident. 103 as the State has not indicated how it relates to the instant case 138. On March 6, 1995, the Ministry of Defense received a complaint from Mr. Luis Antonio Galindo Cárdenas against Peruvian Army Colonel Eduardo Negrón Montestruque, Head of the Huánuco Military-Political 104 Command for the detention and other hardships he suffered between October 16 and November 16, 1994; on 105 March 11, 1995, Mr. Galindo filed another complaint with the Inspector General of Peru’s Ministry of Defense. 139. On May 8, 1998, the Public Prosecutor’s Office decided to close the record on the complaint that Mr. Galindo brought against Drs. Ricardo Robles y Coz, former Provincial Prosecutor from the Office of the Huánuco Combined Provincial Prosecutor, and Carlos Schult Vela, former Chief Superior Prosecutor of Huánuco, for the crimes of abuse of authority, abuse of public office and breach of public duty, based on Law No. 26479 and 106 Law No 26492, the Amnesty Law. 140. The Commission has not been told of any investigations into the complaints filed by Mr. Galindo seeking an investigation into the conduct of the various authorities involved in his detention and the alleged application of the Repentance Law against his will. Nor has the Commission been informed that the Attorney General of the Nation has taken any measures to investigate and punish, where appropriate, the officials of the Public Prosecutor’s Office alleged to have been involved in the facts, as the Executive Council of the Judiciary requested on January 17, 1995, and as was requested of the Office of the Commander of the Army and the authorities at the Ministry of the Interior. Furthermore, the State has not informed the Commission of whether Mr. Galindo was provided with the certified copies of the police-military investigation to which he was subjected, or informed of the grounds on which the authorities decided his case. That information was requested from the Office of the Attorney General on December 13, 1994, and again on January 16, 1995. 141. The Commission therefore concludes that the various efforts made by Mr. Galindo to challenge the validity of the declarations were never investigated nor did they elicit any response from the State. Psychological effects on the members of Mr. Galindo’s family 142. A psychological evaluation was issued on November 16, 1994 concerning Mr. Galindo’s wife, Mrs. Irma Díaz de Galindo, and stated the following: …she gives the impression of being older than her years, which is explained by the severe emotional problems she is experiencing. At the time of the evaluation, her intellectual capacity is being diminished by the interference of emotional factors, because on the Wais scale she is of average intelligence. As for affective life, she is currently depressed and very insecure, and her clinical profile borders on a depressive neurosis, with strong elements of anxiety. This is generating physical reactions typical of these pathological profiles. She has aggressive impulses which tend to emerge when she feels threatened, and a very damaged ego. 103 Annex 34. Verification Report No. 009 DECOTE-PNP-HCO. Confirmation of the information supplied by applicant code number AIJ054998 on the applicant’s Declaration dated October 25, 1994, and Amplification thereof dated January 24, 1995, signed by the Examiner and Commander of the PNP. Attachment to the State’s brief of January 21, 2008. 104 Annex 26. Brief sent to the Minister of Defense, Peruvian Army Division General Víctor Malca Villanueva, dated February 27, 1995. Attachment to the petitioner’s brief of January 3, 1996. 105 Annex 27. Brief addressed to the Inspector General of the Ministry of Defense of Peru, Subject: Complaint filed against Peruvian Army Colonel Eduardo Negrón Montestruque alleging criminal acts, March 7, 1995. Attachment to the petitioner’s brief of January 3, 1996. 106 June 2, 2008. Annex 31. Public Prosecutor’s Office, file No. 525-95, Resolution No.462 of May 8, 1998. Attachment to the petitioner’s brief of