20 98 “certainly not to fire their weapons.” Army Technician Antonio Enrique Vivas also said that in his capacity as patrol commander he was punished for the incident under investigation with eight days of 99 simple arrest for failing to control the soldiers under his command. On July 21, 2003, a statement was taken from Víctor Tarazona Hinostrosa, the father of Zulema Tarazona Arrieta; he said, inter alia, that his 100 daughter helped support the family and that the Army had only paid for her cemetery niche. 102. On September 12, 2003, the 16th Provincial Criminal Court of Lima received a report 101 from the prosecutor indicating the formalities pursued to date. On September 19, 2003, the judge in the case returned the documents to the prosecutor for him to rule on the request (although it fails to indicate 102 what that ruling was on). 103. On September 26, 2003, the Prosecutor’s Office asked the 16th Judge to rule on the State’s civil responsibility as a third party in the proceedings, as had been requested by the civil complainant on July 18, 2003, on the grounds that the offenses with which the defendant was charged occurred on August 9, 1994, during an operation of the Peruvian Army in which he was officially 103 participating in his capacity as a sergeant second-class. On December 22, 2003, the judge in the 104 proceedings ruled the State (Ministry of Defense) to be a civilly responsible third party. 104. On December 24, 2003, although the court had ordered the taking of witness statements from the members of the patrol, that formality had not been completed because of their failure to 105 appear. 105. In a submission dated May 7, 2004, the Third Superior Criminal Prosecutor of Lima asked the judge for a 50-day extension, on the grounds that the investigation was incomplete and the elements necessary for arriving at a clear decision on the commission of the offenses and degree of the 106 accused’s responsibility had not been gathered. The proposed formalities to be carried out included the following: (1) take a statement from the accused, notifying him of the penalties applicable to noncompliance if ruled a fugitive; and (2) take witness statements from the members of the patrol and 107 108 other individuals. The Judge granted the extension in a ruling dated May 21, 2004. 98 Annex 59: Witness statement of Peruvian Army Technician Third-Class Antonio Enrique Vivas Chapilleuren, aged 41, July 15, 2003. Annex to the State’s communication of December 14, 2004. 99 Annex 59: Witness statement of Peruvian Army Technician Third-Class Antonio Enrique Vivas Chapilleuren, aged 41, July 15, 2003. Annex to the State’s communication of December 14, 2004. 100 Annex 60: Statement of Víctor Tarazona Hinostroza, aged 66, July 21, 2003, signed by Pedro Abraham Valdivia, Assistant Provincial Prosecutor. Annex to the State’s communication of December 14, 2004. 101 Annex 61: Report No. 1587, case file No. 550-02, September 9, 2002. Annex to the State’s communication of December 14, 2004. 102 Annex 62: Resolution of September 19, 2003, by the Criminal Judge in case file 550-2003. Annex to the State’s communication of December 14, 2004. 103 Annex 63: Report of the 16th Provincial Criminal Prosecutor, addressed to the Judge, dated September 25, 2003. 104 Annex 64: Resolution of December 22, 2003, signed by Marco Cevallos Reyes. Annex to the State’s communication of December 14, 2004. 105 Annex 67: Comments, December 24, 2003, signed by the Criminal Judge. Annex to the State’s communication of December 14, 2004. 106 Annex 65: Case file No. 429-2004, Report No. 596-2004, May 7, 2004. Annex to the State’s communication of December 14, 2004. 107 Annex 65: Case file No. 429-2004, Report No. 596-2004, May 7, 2004. Annex to the State’s communication of December 14, 2004. 108 Annex 66: Ruling dated May 21, 2004, case file 429-2004(2C). Annex 65: Case file No. 429-2004, Report No. 5962004 dated May 7, 2004. Annex to the State’s communication of December 14, 2004.