39. Along similar lines, in its March 29, 1999 report, the Office of the People’s Defender pointed to contradictions in the statements of the participants, including both the persons at “Los Manolos” Hotel and the police officers. The Office of the People’s Defender also referred to the statement of witness Juan Martín Silva González to the effect that he had seen the disappeared person in the early morning hours of March 20, 1999, qualifying that testimony as refutable. Thus, the Office of the People’s Defender underlined the fact that the disappeared person had not been seen by any other citizen, especially in light of the fact that Saturdays are market days that draw many merchants.”20 40. Moreover, the Office of the People’s Defender said that in the declaration of Marcos Sierras Tueros to that office, he stated that Mrs. Lucinda Ponce Sáfora, who supports him, told him that “she had been lectured to declare that early in the morning on that day, she saw a young man with long hair crossing the street on which the Lircay police station was located.”21 41. The Commission does not have any element of proof that corroborates the statement of the police officers to the effect that they released Walter Munárriz Escobar. As indicated earlier, the Peruvian State acknowledged that there was no record of his arrest, or of his entry into the Lircay police station or his alleged release. 42. In addition to the testimonies questioned internally for which there is evidence of manipulation, the State has not provided any further evidence demonstrating its hypothesis. Thus the Commission considers as established fact that the last time that Walter Munárriz Escobar was seen; he was in the custody of the State. 43. In addition to the reports which are described later and which gave rise to the criminal investigation, in April 1999 the mother of Walter Munárriz Escobar presented letters to the People’s Defender, the Minister of the Interior, and the Chairman of the Human Rights Committee in the National Congress requesting support for the investigation into the disappearance of her son. 22 44. As will be indicated later in this report, the criminal investigations failed to clarify what happened to Walter Munárriz Escobar. B. Internal proceedings related to the disappearance of Walter Munárriz Escobar 1. Criminal investigation 45. The petitioners reported that on the day after the disappearance of Walter Munárriz Escobar, his mother, Gladys Escobar Candiotti, went to the Lircay Provincial Prosecutor’s Office to file the corresponding complaint. However, they state that the Prosecutor on duty, Silvia Montero Meléndez, refused to receive her complaint and told her: "What do you think, lady, that policemen are thugs, that we're living in the days of terrorism, or what,” adding that she needed to wait two months before filing a complaint 23. Thus in the expanded complaint presented to the Office of the People’s Defender on March 25, 1999, Mrs. Escobar Candiotti requested that a specific record be made of the fact that “Prosecutor Silvia Montero Meléndez refused to receive my complaint saying that I should return in 60 days.” 24 The State did not object to the allegation of Mrs. Escobar regarding the initial refusal of Prosecutor Montero to receive the complaint. 20 Annex 6. Report of the Office of the People’s Defender, March 29, 1999. Annex 20 of the initial petition. 21 Annex 9. Report of the Office of the People’s Defender, March 31, 1999. Annex 23 of the initial petition. Annex 10. Copies of the letters sent to the People’s Defender, the Minister of the Interior, and the Chairman of the Human Rights Committee of the National Congress. Initial petition of June 23, 2005. 22 23 Annex 7. Statement of Mrs. Gladys Escobar to the COMISEDH attorney given on April 29, 1999. 24 Annex 11. Addendum to the complaint before the Office of the People’s Defender. Annex to the initial petition of June 23, 2005. 8