4 18. The petitioners report that on November 2, 1994, the Public Prosecution Service (MP) filed a criminal complaint against Antonio Mauricio Evangelista Pinedo for the crime of homicide against Zulema Tarazona Arrieta and Norma Teresa Pérez Chávez and for the crime of criminal wounding against Luis Alberto Bejarano Laura, and that on November 25 the judicial proceedings began before the 27th Criminal Court of Lima. They note that the alleged victims’ next-of-kin registered in the proceedings 3 and requested civil redress in accordance with Article 92 of the Criminal Code and Article 54 et seq. of 4 the Code of Criminal Procedure. 19. They report that on June 14, 1995, Amnesty Law No. 26479 was enacted, which awarded amnesty to military, police, and civilian personnel involved in human rights violations committed between 1980 and the date of the Law’s enactment. On June 26, 1995, the petitioners state, Antonio Evangelista Pinedo requested the benefit of the amnesty provided for in Law 26479. They report that on June 20, 1995, the Supreme Military Justice Council, pursuant to Amnesty Laws Nos. 26479 and 26492, awarded the defendant amnesty; it also ordered the proceedings to be sent to the archive and the detainees to be released, in spite of there being an ongoing jurisdiction dispute between the civilian and military courts, which the Supreme Court of Justice was required to resolve in compliance with Article 361 of the Code of Military Justice. 20. In addition, they state that in October 1994, the Ministry of Defense informed the nation’s Attorney General that the Permanent Court-Martial of the Second Army Judicial District had begun judicial proceedings for the crime of negligent homicide against the same person, and that on November 24, 1994, the Permanent Military Judge requested the disqualification of the Judge of the 27th Criminal Court of Lima, a motion that was ruled groundless at the first instance on December 12, 1995. 21. They add that the accused filed a motion of res judicata with the 27th Criminal Court of Lima, under the resolution of the Supreme Military Justice Council of June 20, 1995, whereby the judicial proceedings it had been hearing were sent to the archive on September 11, 1995, and the civil redress requested by the alleged victims’ families was rendered unavailable. 22. The petitioners report that on April 19, 2001, they asked the 27th Criminal Court of Lima to reopen the criminal trial against Mauricio Evangelista Pinedo, based on the Inter-American Court’s judgment in the Barrios Altos Case of March 14, 2001, which voided the amnesty laws of all effect; that request was made afresh on May 21, 2001. They state that the 27th Criminal Court of Lima, in order to rule on that request, then asked the military justice system for information on the status of the case file; they also requested copies of the Barrios Altos judgment from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which were presented on September 2, 2002. 23. The petitioners report that on August 8, 2001, they asked the Supreme Military Justice Council to void the amnesty and overturn the proceedings and disqualification, pursuant to the resolutions of the Inter-American Court in its judgment in the Barrios Altos Case. They state that on August 26, 2002, the Supreme Council resolved that in this specific case, the amnesty was not in conflict with the InterAmerican Court’s judgment. 24. They report that on November 26, 2002, the 27th Criminal Court recused itself from further hearing the proceedings, under Administrative Resolution No. 132-P-CSIJL of October 28, 1997, which stated that it could only hear cases brought under summary proceedings, which meant an unnecessary delay in processing the criminal trial. 25. They state that on January 21, 2003, pursuant to the Inter-American Court’s judgment in the Barrios Altos Case, the 16th Criminal Court of Lima ordered the removal from the archive of the 3 4 Criminal Code, Article 92: “Civil redress shall be set in conjunction with sentencing.” The petitioners state that Articles 54 and 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provide that: “The victim, his forebears or progeny, his spouse, his relatives by blood and marriage up to the second degree… may appear as civil complainants.” “Civil complainants may submit the evidence they deem useful to cast light on the crime, and they may also appoint counsel for the oral proceedings and attend the hearing. Their attendance shall be obligatory when so ordered by the Court.”