5 25. It described the infrastructure, number of professionals hired, and work carried out by the Specialized Forensic Team. It reported that using resources of the Public Prosecution Service and international cooperation assistance, a modern Forensic Investigations Laboratory has been built in Ayacucho, which is being used exclusively to locate and identify human remains belonging to the disappeared. It said that between 2008 and 2010, the Specialized Forensic Team succeeded in recovering the human remains of 1,047 individuals, 804 of whom were identified, with 669 being returned to their next-of-kin. It reported that in order to pursue effective investigations of the serious human rights violations committed during the internal armed conflict, the Public Prosecution Service created a subsystem of prosecutors’ offices specializing in crimes against humanity, comprising three Senior Prosecutors’ Offices in Lima and nine Supraprovincial Prosecutors’ Offices in the departments where the highest levels of political violence were recorded, such as Ayacucho, Huancavelica, and Huánuco. 26. The State contended that “since the Inter-American Court issued its judgment in the Barrios Altos case, the obligation of conducting an investigation, prosecuting, and punishing has been carried out much more effectively than was possible in the past.” It said that the Barrios Altos judgment marked “a nationwide rejection of the so-called self-amnesties issued in order to protect a group of people with ties to those in power at the time.” The State submitted statistics on the number of judgments, acquittals, and convictions for the crime of forced disappearance handed down by the National Criminal Chamber between 2004 and 2010, during which time eight people were convicted and 64 were acquitted. It noted that the Public Prosecution Service and the judiciary “are acting within their powers and with full respect for international human rights standards, investigating, prosecuting, and processing the individuals involved; their actions, given the complexity of these cases, have been getting gradually better in recent years.” 27. With regard to the judicial proceedings related to the alleged forced disappearance of Jeremías Osorio, the State reports that in 1991, the Mixed Provincial Prosecution Office of Cajatambo opened an investigation. However, it noted that the Mixed Court of Cajatambo recused itself from hearing the criminal proceedings and declined jurisdiction in favor of the military justice system. It said that criminal committal proceedings against Juan Carlos Delgado Tello for the crime of abduction and for crimes against humanity in the form of forced disappearance were opened in 2005. It reported that on December 17, 2008, the National Criminal Chamber issued an acquittal, after finding reasonable doubt regarding Juan Carlos Delgado’s responsibility. It further noted that on June 24, 2010, the Supreme Court of Justice overturned that judgment and that, since then, the proceedings have been at the oral trial stage before the National Criminal Chamber. According to the Peruvian State’s narrative, the resolution of June 24, 2010, was based on the fact that the National Criminal Chamber failed to properly assess the evidence produced during the investigations and the oral proceedings. 28. The State indicated that it will be presenting more detailed information on the formalities being pursued by the Public Prosecution Service and the judiciary to determine Jeremías Osorio Rivera’s whereabouts, cast light on the incident, and punish the guilty. It added that “the office of the Specialized Supranational Attorney has issued communications to various agencies of the Ministry of Defense and, once these have been collected, they will be conveyed to the honorable Inter-American Commission in a supplementary report.” As of the date of the approval of this merits report, the IACHR had received no additional information from the Peruvian State in this regard. 29. Although in its final comments on the merits, the State submitted general information on the work carried out by the Specialized Forensic Team and the system of prosecutors’ offices in the field of human rights, it made no specific claims regarding the alleged violation of rights enshrined in the American Convention described by the petitioners. Similarly, while it rejected the petitioners’ contentions regarding an alleged context of impunity surrounding crimes committed during the internal armed conflict in Peru, it did not challenge the specific claims related to the events of April 28 to May 1, 1991, involving Mr. Jeremías Osorio Rivera. 30. Finally, the Peruvian State presented copies of documents and resolutions of the Public Prosecution Service, a video on the work and physical infrastructure of the Specialized Forensic Team’s laboratories, reports on the organization and functions of the system of prosecutors’ offices specializing in