36 143. According to the parties’ contentions and the information contained in the case file, between February 1996 and June 2004 the Peruvian judicial authorities took no steps whatsoever in connection with the forced disappearance of Jeremías Osorio Rivera. During most of that period, laws were in place that prevented the prosecution of offenses committed by state agents or civilians, “as a consequence of the antiterrorism effort.” Specifically, on June 15, 1995, the Democratic Constituent Congress adopted Law No. 26479, Article 1 of which granted: […] general amnesty to military, police, or civilian personnel […] under investigation, facing complaints, accused, being prosecuted, or convicted for regular and military crimes […] for all incidents derived or arising from or as a consequence of the antiterrorism effort […] from May 1980 175 up to the date of this law’s enactment. 144. Similarly, Article 6 of Law No. 26479 stipulated that “the facts or crimes of this law may not be investigated […] all ongoing or executable legal cases are to be sent to the archive.” On July 2, 1995, the Democratic Constituent Congress enacted Law No. 26492, stating that the amnesty law was not open to judicial review because its enactment was a matter of the sole competence of the legislative branch. 145. In its 1996 Annual Report, the IACHR said that Law No. 26479 constituted undue interference in the work of the judiciary and that Law No. 26492 “not only fails to provide an effective remedy, but goes much further, denying any possibility of appeal or of bringing an objection based on 176 human rights violations.” Consequently, the IACHR recommended “that the Peruvian State repeal the amnesty law (No. 26479), and the law on judicial interpretation (No. 26492), because they are incompatible with the American Convention,” and that it “investigate, try, and punish the state agents 177 accused of human rights violations, especially violations that amount to international crimes.” 146. On March 14, 2001, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued judgment in the Barrios Altos case, ruling that amnesty laws Nos. 26479 and 26492 were incompatible with the American 178 Convention on Human Rights and, consequently, were void of legal effect. Subsequently, the InterAmerican Court issued a judgment interpreting its judgment on the merits in which it ruled that given the nature of the violation that amnesty laws Nos. 26479 and 26492 represented, its decision in the judgment 179 on the merits in Barrios Altos would be of general applicability. In its final comments on the merits, the Peruvian State emphasized that “since the judgment handed down by the Inter-American Court in the Barrios Altos case, the obligation of conducting an investigation and of prosecuting and punishing has become more effective than it was in the past,” and it further noted that the precedent marked “a nationwide rejection of the so-called self-amnesties issued in order to protect a group of people with ties 180 to those in power at the time.” 147. The IACHR notes that the judicial authorities of the military justice system who heard the criminal complaint brought against Juan Carlos Tello Delgado did not invoke these amnesty laws in their irrevocable dismissal decision of February 7, 1996. However, as long as Laws 26479 and 26492 remained in force, fresh investigations to cast light on the forced disappearance of Jeremías Osorio Rivera could not be opened. As a result, and given the legal inability of the victim’s next-of-kin to secure 175 Annex 83: Law No. 26479 of June 14, 1992, available on the web site of the Congress of the Republic of Peru at www.congreso.gob.pe/ntley/Imagenes/Leyes/26479.pdf. 176 IACHR, Annual Report 1996, Chapter V, Human Rights Developments in the Region, Peru, Section IV.C,, available at www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/96span/IA1996CapV4.htm. 177 IACHR, Annual Report 1996, Chapter V, Human Rights Developments in the Region, Peru, Section VIII.6, available at www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/96span/IA1996CapV4.htm. 178 I/A Court H. R., Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru, Judgment of March 14, 2001, Series C No. 75, operative paragraph 4. 179 I/A Court H. R., Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru, Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits (Art. 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights), Judgment of September 3, 2001, Series C No. 83, operative paragraph 3. 180 Communication from the State dated April 28, 2011, received by the IACHR on April 29 of that year, paras. 28 and 29.