-17Military Justice Council had granted him the benefit of Law N° 26.479, which was res judicata and a person cannot be judged twice for the same act.59 57. On June 22, 1995, an Army unit responded to the communication sent on May 2,1995 by the Criminal Court of Lima (supra para. 47) that ordered the appearance of the members of the Army patrol so that they might testify, indicating that those persons had been summoned to appear before that court.60 58. On August 18, 1995, the Provincial Prosecutor presented his opinion to the Criminal Court, recommending that the motion of res judicata be accepted.61 On September 7, 1995, the Provincial Prosecutor reiterated his opinion to the Criminal Court.62 59. On September 11, 1995, the Criminal Court accepted the motion of res judicata and ordered the definitive closing of the case. The resolution also ordered the immediate release of the accused and the annulment of the criminal and judicial record resulting from the investigation. On September 12, 1995, the judge requested the Military Court that it order the immediate release of Sgt. Evangelista Pinedo.63 D. The removal of the file of the case from the archive (“desarchivamiento”) (April 19, 2001 to January 21, 2003) 60. On April 19, 2001, the civil complainants requested the Criminal Court to remove the file of the criminal case from the archive (“desarchivar”) and asked that the order of September 11, 1995, which had accepted the motion of res judicata, be set aside in view of the decision of the Inter-American Court in the case of Barrios Altos v. Peru of March 14, 2001 that held that Amnesty Laws N° 26.479 and 26.492 were incompatible with the American Convention and, therefore, lacked legal effect.64 61. On June 7, 2001, the next of kin of the alleged victims requested that the Supreme Military Justice Council declare without legal effect the amnesty law and annul the process and the order to desist, in view of the decision of the Inter-American Court. This request was reiterated on January 31 and April 25, 2002.65 Cf. Motion of res judicata presented by Sgt. Evangelista Pinedo for the crime against the life, body and health – simple homicide et al. – to the 27th Criminal Court of Lima, dated Augst 3, 1995 (evidence file, folios 207 to 210). 59 60 193). Cf. Written communication Nº 879 CP-PREBOSTE 2/29.02.03 of June 22, 1995 (evidence file, folios 192 to Cf. Communication of the Provincial Prosecutor addressed to the Criminal Court, dated August 18, 1995 (evidence file, folios 211 to 212). 61 Cf. Communication of the Provincial Prosecutor of Lima to the judge, dated September 7, 1995, Motion of res judicata (evidence file, folios 215 to 216). 62 Cf. Resolution of the 27th Criminal Court of Lima in file of N-431-94 dated September 11, 1995 (evidence file, folios 217 to 218), and written communication 431-91.EDT issued by Judge María Teresa Jara García to the Third Permanent Court of the Second Judicial Zone of the Army, dated September 12, 1995 (evidence file, folios 220 to 221). 63 Cf. Request presented by Santiago Pérez Vera and Víctor Tarazona Hinostroza to the 27th Criminal Court of Lima, dated April 19, 2001 (evidence file, folios 3005 to 3012). See also: Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C No. 75, para. 44. 64 This norm establishes the procedure for the implementation of supranational judgments pursuant to the treaties to which Peru is a party; the judgments issued by international tribunals must be transcribed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, sent to the President of the Supreme Court, who, in turn, must send them to the Chamber in which the domestic jurisdiction was exhausted and order the execution of the supranational judgment by the Specialized Judge or Judge of Mixed Competence. Cf. Communication of Mr. Pérez Vera and Mr. Tarazona Hinostroza to the President of the Supreme Military Justice Council of January 7, 2001 (evidence file, folios 2544 to 2551); Communication of Víctor Tarazona Hinostroza to the President of the Supreme Military Justice Council of January 31, 65