29. Regarding the case of Néstor Rojas Medina, the state pointed out that, on September 16, 2004, his mother, Ms. Marcelina Medina Negrón, had filed a complaint with the Prosecution Service Specializing in Forced Disappearances, which had opened a preliminary investigation, addressed official letters to various departments, and subpoenaed the complainant to make her statement in the inquiry. The state reported that, on January 18, 2013, the First Corporate Provincial Criminal Prosecution Service of Tocache had declared that it was not admissible to formalize or continue with the preliminary investigation for the crime against humanity, under the category of forced disappearance, perpetrated by members of the National Police Force, in the identification stage, to the detriment of Néstor Rojas Medina. It was also argued that Amnesty Laws Nos. 26479 and 26492 were not applied in the case and there is no linkage between the failure to identify the allegedly accused and/or the perpetrator of the crime and the drafting of the criminal specification of the crime of forced disappearance of Article 320 of the Peruvian Criminal Code, as a result of which it has not been an obstacle for the development of the investigations. 30. As for the case of Cory Clodolia Tenicela Tello, the state reported that, on March 5, 2010, the Third Provincial Criminal Prosecution Service of Huancayo formally filed proceedings for the crime against personal liberty and that the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the judicial branch continue to process the criminal proceedings and have ordered various steps to be taken to better explain the facts. It reported that registration of Ms. Cory in the Consolidated Registry of Victims was carried out ex officio, because she was included in the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (CVR) and her case is in the assessment and specification stage, indicating that, if the various stages are duly carried out, the next of kin can be included as beneficiaries of the Comprehensive Reparations Plan. 31. In general, the state is requesting that the Commission declare that the claims of the petitioners are without merit and that it order archiving the cases of Wilfredo Terrones Silva, Teresa Díaz Aparicio, Santiago Antezana Cueto, Néstor Rojas Medina, and Cory Clodolia Tenicela Tello, because the state has conducted relevant investigations to secure the truth about the incidents in each one of the cases. IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY OF CASE 11.053 (Wilfredo Terrones Silva) AND CASE 12.225 (Néstor Rojas Medina) A. Jurisdiction ratione materiae, ratione personae, ratione temporis, and ratione loci of the Commission 32. The petitioners are entitled by Article 44 of the American Convention to file complaints. Likewise, the alleged victims are natural persons who were under the jurisdiction of the Peruvian State at the time of the alleged incidents. As a result, the Commission has the jurisdiction ratione personae to examine the petition. The Commission has the jurisdiction ratione loci to hear the petition, because the petition alleges violations of the American Convention that had taken place in the territory of a state party to said treaty. The IACHR has jurisdiction ratione materiae because the petition refers to alleged violations of the American Convention and the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. 33. Finally, the Commission also has the jurisdiction ratione temporis because Peru ratified the American Convention on July 28, 1978 and therefore has the obligation to abide by and guarantee the rights enshrined in the American Convention, which was already in force for the state at the time that the incidents occurred. Regarding the case of Mr. Néstor Rojas Medina, the state argued that there was an absence of temporary jurisdiction regarding the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons for the Commission’s lack of jurisdiction to hear and rule on incidents occurring prior to the date on which the Peruvian State ratified said instrument. The Commission stresses that, by virtue of the ongoing nature of the failure to clarify the crime of forced disappearance, it has the jurisdiction ratione temporis regarding the obligations set forth in said Convention, as long as these obligations continue to be unfulfilled at February 13, 2002, date that the ratification instrument was deposited.