Cueto, Néstor Rojas Medina, and Cory Clodolia Tenicela Tello, nor was the state responsible with respect to Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention in connection with Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument. 23. The state reported that, concerning the five cases subject of the present report, it had forwarded formal letters to various authorities such as the Joint Command of the Armed Forces, the General Inspection Office of the Army, divisions of the National Police Force of Peru and the Detainee Monitoring Office, among others, who denied that their institutions had been involved in or had detained the alleged victims. It also submitted information about investigations conducted in each one of the cases, which shall be described below. 24. As for the case of Mr. Wilfredo Terrones Silva, the state reported, in its first communications, that he was not detained by any unit of the National Police Force. It also asserted that Mr. Terrones Silva had been indicted as deputy grassroots director and leader of the Shining Path in the province of Jaén and had been deprived of liberty for five years for having perpetrated terrorist attacks. In its communication of August 20, 1998, the state indicated that the authorities presumed that the alleged victim had gone into hiding, and it requested the Commission to declare the case inadmissible because of the petitioner’s failure to keep his case active and also because remedies under domestic law had not been exhausted as no complaint had been filed with national authorities. 25. In its communication of September 22, 2011, the state alleged that it had not failed to fulfill its obligation to investigate, indicating that it had taken a series of actions in accordance with police procedures in the investigations of the missing persons, for the purpose of locating Mr. Terrones Silva and reported that the case is pending in the Missing Persons Division of the Criminal Investigation Department of the National Police Force of Peru (División de Personas Desaparecidas de la Dirección de Investigación Criminal de la Policía Nacional del Perú—DIRINCRI PNP). 26. Regarding the case of Teresa Díaz Aparicio, the state indicated that, although resolution of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of February 2009 had advanced the hypothesis that Ms. Díaz Aparicio had been the target of a forced disappearance, at present there are not enough elements to carry out inquiries in a criminal proceedings process aimed at finding the truth of the events and the perpetrator of the crime and the whereabouts of the alleged victim. The state argued that it was inadmissible to infer and charge the state with international responsibility on the basis of events such as her detention in 1989 and the subsequent search of her home, which occurred three years before her disappearance. 27. It stated that, after the complaint filed by the alleged victim’s brother, a police investigation was ordered under the direction of the Prosecution Service Specializing in Forced Disappearances, Extrajudicial Executions, and the Exhumation of Clandestine Graves. It stated that, during the investigative activities, statements were taken from next of kin and other persons close to the victim and information was requested from various state institutions, hospitals, and morgues of the province of Lima. It argued that, although the Prosecutor decided to provisionally archive the case, various steps continue to be taken to clarify the facts, as a result of which the state cannot bear international responsibility for the failure to produce results in the investigation. 28. As for the case of Santiago Antezana Cueto, the state indicated that, on April 28, 2010, the Third Supraprovincial Criminal Court had brought criminal proceedings against the then director of the Military Base of the province of Acobamba as the alleged perpetrator of the crime of forced disappearance. It indicated that these proceedings have been processed in line with the norms stipulated in domestic laws and ensuring guarantees of due process of law. The state reported that, on November 21, 2011, the National Criminal Court upheld the ruling that was appealed on February 17, 2011 and issued by the Third Supraprovincial Criminal Court of Lima, which stated that the objections being filed to the “underlying crime charged” and the statute of limitations claimed by the accused were without merit. Likewise, by means of the communication of July 9, 2013, it indicated that the criminal proceedings for crimes against humanity, under the category of forced disappearance, to the detriment of Santiago Antezana Cueto was in the oral trial stage, concretely in the stage of hearing statements from witnesses and experts.