-19participated.74 On December 22, 2003, the judge ruled the Ministry of Defense to be a civilly responsible third party with respect to the payment of reparations.75 68. By communication of May 7,, 2004, the Third Superior Criminal Prosecutor of Lima asked the judge for an extension of 50 days since he had not been able to gather the elements necessary to arrive at a clear decision on the commission of the offenses and the degrees of responsibility of the defendant. The proposed procedures to be carried out included: 1) receive the testimony of the defendant, notifying him of the punishment for noncompliance, if ruled a fugitive, and 2) take the statements of the members of the patrol and other individuals.76 On May 21, 2004, the judge granted the extension so that the procedures might be pursued to better clarify the incident.77 69. On November 2, 2004, the judge issued a resolution that warned that there were still important procedures to carry out in the proceedings and resolved, inter alia: 1) that orders be given to immediately locate and arrest Sgt. Evangelista Pinedo; 2) that statements be taken from the members of the Patrol, and 3) that the Army Directorate of Personnel be urgently contacted for it to report on the employment of the defendant and, if still serving, “to make him physically available to the court due to the existence of the arrest warrant.”78 70. On August 2, 2005, the judge extended the committal proceeding for 30 days in order to carry out the procedures. In connection with the taking of testimony of the members of the Patrol, an order was given for notice to be served on the National Registry of Identity and Civil Status (hereinafter “RENIEC”) because, according to the report sent by the Army Directorate of Personnel, those troops were no longer serving and, therefore, their testimonies had not been received.79 71. On September 21, 2005, the judge recused himself from further presiding over the proceedings, pursuant to the Administrative Order that expanded the jurisdiction of the Specialized Courts for Crimes of Terrorism to allow them to hear cases involving common crimes that were human rights violations, a situation like that of the case before the judge. Therefore, the judge sent the record to the Superior Court of Justice of Lima in order that it could, in turn, be sent to the Specialized Court for Crimes of Terrorism.80 72. On December 19, 2005, the Judge of the Fourth Supraprovincial Criminal Court asked the President of the Superior Chamber for an exceptional extension to pursue various procedures, including taking the testimony of the defendant and that of the 11 members of the patrol.81 73. On May 30, 2006, the Senior Prosecutor of the Office of the National Superior Criminal Prosecutor asked the President of the National Criminal Chamber for an exceptional extension of 20 days to receive the testimony of the defendant or, failing that, to determine his legal 74 277). 75 Cf. Opinion of the Prosecutor in case file N° 550-02 of September 25, 2003 (evidence file, folios 276 to Cf. Decision of the 16th Criminal Court of Lima of December 22, 2003 (evidence file, folios 278 to 279). Cf. Opinion N° 596-2004 of the Third Superior Criminal Prosecutor of Lima in case file N° 429-2004 of May 7, 2004 (evidence file, folios 280 to 281). 76 77 Cf. Decision of the 16th Criminal Court of Lima of May 21, 2004 (evidence file, folios 282 to 283. 78 Cf. Decision of the 16th Criminal Court of Lima of November 2, 2004 (evidence file, folios 286 to 287). Cf. Judicial notification issued by the 16th Criminal Court of Lima on August 2, 2005 (evidence file, folios 288 to 289). 79 80 to 291). Cf. Decision of recusal of the 16th Criminal Court of Lima of September 21, 2005 (evidence file, folios 290 Cf. Final report on an extension issued by the 4th Supraprovincial Criminal Court on December 19, 2005 (evidence file, folios 292 to 295). 81