56. On December 13, 2001, the Supreme Criminal Chamber vacated the judgment of the lower court due to the procedural irregularities of the Superior Criminal Court, and ordered that court to hold a new oral proceeding.42 This decision stated that: […] from the review of court documents, it was discovered that the court committed a series of irregularities during the oral proceedings; it failed to read out the prosecutor’s criminal indictment […]; it examined each of the defendants separately, but it failed to perform its duty to read out the defendants’ statements prior to the oral hearing […]; there are expanded charges, which were issued and presented after the pleadings of the defense, as is verified in the record of the reading of the sentence on page two thousand seven, it being noted in this regard that there is no order of any kind to issue the expanded indictment; the same hearing record also shows that the Factual Issues were not read out, despite the fact that the sentence to be imposed was effective; moreover, neither the Factual Issues nor the Judgment on the crime was certified by the Secretary of the Superior Criminal Court; thereby incurring cause for nullity […].43 57. In a decision rendered on April 1, 2002, the Joint Chamber of the Huancavelica Superior Court of Justice granted the immediate release of defendants Roberto Eugenio Gastiaburu Nakada and Adolfo Edgar Ángeles Ramos.44 58. After holding a new oral trial, on May 25, 2004, the Huancavelica Joint Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice acquitted all of the defendants, with regard to both the sentence and civil responsibility for having “proven the disappearance of the injured party, Walter Munárriz Escobar, but not the criminal liability of the defendants […];” 45 it decided to provisionally close the case and ordered the continuation of the investigations “into the whereabouts of the injured party, as well as the persons presumed to be responsible for forced disappearance.”46 Appeals for nullity [recursos de nulidad] were filed against the acquittal judgment and, on October 20, 2004, the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice ruled against nullity of the judgment of May 25, 2004, stating: […]That in the case of court records, evidence presented during the proceedings was insufficient to unequivocally confirm the criminal assumptions against defendants Roberto Eugenio Gastiaburú Nakada, Adolfo Edgar Ángeles Ramos, Claudio Tomás Gutiérrez Velásquez, Gunther Cuaresma Ramos, Percy Salvatierra Laura, and Carlos Hugo Valdivia Urrutia, members of the National Peruvian Police, who were imputed to have participated in the disappearance of the injured party, Walter Munarriz Escobar […] That despite having proven that the injured party was taken to and detained at the facilities of the city police station, court documents do not provide evidence that would corroborate the contradictory accusation of Leonidas Marcos Sierra Tueros, who, in the oral proceeding (see page two thousand five hundred eighty-nine), finally makes a statement against the defendants to the effect that he heard noises, sharp blows, and the sobs of a young man when he was in the jail cells of the police department early in the morning of the events, as the statement does not hold true, and if he made a statement to that effect it was because of the offer made to him by a family member of the injured party to help him in a criminal proceeding for which he would be imprisoned […], so that there is reasonable doubt regarding his participation in committing the investigated crimes that benefits the defendants in strict application of the 42 Annex 24. Copy of the Supreme Final Judgment of December 13, 2001. Annex to the State’s Memorandum No. 7-5-M/066 of February 9, 2006. 43 Annex 24. Copy of the Supreme Final Judgment of December 13, 2001. Annex to the State’s Memorandum No. 7-5-M/066 of February 9, 2006. 44 45 46 Annex 25. Copy of the judgment of April 1, 2001. Annex to the initial petition. Annex 3. Copy of the judgment of May 25, 2004. Annex to the State’s Memorandum No. 7-5-M/066 of February 9, 2006. Annex 3. Copy of the judgment of May 25, 2004. Annex to the State’s Memorandum No. 7-5-M/066 of February 9, 2006. 12