-1862. On August 29, 2001, the Provincial Prosecutor sent his opinion regarding the request of the petitioners to the Criminal Court, proposing that the request be declared out of order because the petitioners had annexed a copy of the decision of the Inter-American Court in the Barrios Altos case that did not comply with the procedure set out in the Organic Law of the Judiciary.66 63. On October 23, 2002, the Provincial Prosecutor issued an opinion favorable to the removal of the file of the case from the archive and the continuation of the trial after having received the decision of the Inter-American Court, pursuant to the Organic Law.67 64. On January 21, 2003, the Provincial Court ordered the case removed from the archive and the criminal trial reopened; declared null and void the resolution that accepted the motion of res judicata in favor of Sgt. Evangelista Pinedo; extended the duration of the committal proceedings so that a series of procedures could be carried out, and instructed the Judicial Police to locate and arrest the defendant.68 E. The trial and conviction of Sgt. Evangelista Pinedo (January 21, 2003 to July 23, 2008) 65. On May 12, 2003, the Provincial Prosecutor requested that the judge of the case extend for 30 days the committal proceedings because the investigation had just opened and the extension was mainly necessary to ask the competent authority to locate and arrest the defendant and to receive the statements of the members of the Army patrol.69 On June 9, 2003, the Thirteenth Provisional Criminal Court of Lima accepted the extension of the period of committal proceedings so that the Prosecutor could pursue different procedures and receive the statements.70 66. On July 15, 2003, testimony was taken from Army Technican 3rd Grade Antonio Enrique Vivas Chapilliquen, Head of the Military Patrol that included Sgt. Evangelista Pinedo on August 9, 1994.71 On July 21, 2003, Mr. Tarazona Hinostrosa testified.72 On September 12, 2003, the Provincial Court received the opinion of the Prosecutor in which he informed on the procedures carried out and those that were not during the committal proceedings.73 67. On September 25, 2003, the Prosecutor requested the judge to rule on the State’s civil responsibility as a third party in the proceedings, as had been requested by the civil complainants on July 18, 2003, on the grounds that the charges imputed to the defendant took place on August 9, 1994 during an operation of the Peruvian Army in which he officially 2002 (evidence file, folios 2552 to 2555); and Communication of Gloria Cano Legua, lawyer of Mr. Tarazona Hinostroza, to the President of the Supreme Military Justice Council, dated April 25, 2002 (evidence file, folios 2556 to 2560). Cf. Opinion N° 673 issued by the 27th Provincial Prosecutor of Lima in case file N° 431-94, dated August 29, 2001 (evidence file, folios 230 to 232). 66 Cf. Opinion N° 1012-02 issued by the 27th Provincial Prosecutor of Lima in case file N° 431-02-94, dated October 23, 2002, (evidence file, folios 235 to237). 67 68 Cf. Decision of the 16th Criminal Court of Lima of January 21, 2003 (evidence file, folios 240 to 243). Cf. Opinion N° 1071 issued by the 16th Provincial Prosecutor of Lima in case file N° 559-2002 of May 12, 2003 (evidence file, folios 246 to 256). 69 70 to 259). Cf. Decision of the Thirteenth Provisional Criminal Court of Lima of June 9, 2003 (evidence file, folios 257 71 Cf. Testimony of July 15, 2003 of Antonio Enrique Vivas Chapilliquen (evidence file, folios 260 to 265) 72 Cf. Preventive declaración of July 21, 2003 of Mr. Tarazona Hinostroza (evidence file, folios 266 to 269). 73 Cf. Opinion N° 1587 of the Prosecutor in case file N° 550-02 of September 9, 2002 (evidence file, folios 270 to 273).