5 proceedings against Mauricio Evangelista Pinedo for crimes against “the life, body, and health (homicide) of Zulema Tarazona Arrieta and Norma Teresa Pérez Chávez and for the crime against the life, body, and health (grievous bodily harm) against Luis Alberto Bejarano Laura.” 26. The petitioners report that in 2004 the case file was referred to the Third Criminal Chamber for Released Prisoners of the Lima Superior Court of Justice, which extended the deadline for the committal stage on three occasions, at the request of the Third Superior Criminal Prosecutor. 27. The petitioners claim that the 21 months that passed between the request for the proceedings to be reopened and their actual reopening cannot be explained, in that the 27th Criminal Court of Lima took more than 19 months to process the case before recusing itself from the trial under the terms of a much earlier law. They claim that this slowness was repeated, albeit to a lesser extent, in the 16th Criminal Court of Lima’s processing of the case, when that Court took two months to hear the judicial investigations. 28. The petitioners further claim there was an unjustified delay at the criminal investigation stage, in that under Peruvian law in force at the time, the committal period in regular proceedings was limited to four months, with the possibility of up to an additional 60 days in exceptional circumstances (Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 202). They state that although Article 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provided that exceptionally, in dealing with complex cases with large amounts of evidence, several defendants or victims, criminal gangs or organizations, need for expert testimony, or other special considerations, judges could, by means of a grounded resolution, extend the committal deadline for up to an additional eight months, in the case at hand no such extension was ordered because none of the grounds indicated in that provision had been triggered. 29. They claim that at the end of the investigation stage, the court had not performed the formalities necessary to clear up the incident and for the Ministry of Defense to locate the defendant Antonio Evangelista Pinedo, who had not yet been brought before the 16th Criminal Court of Lima even though, on February 4, 2005, he had submitted a document appointing his defense counsel. 30. They report that on September 21, 2005, the 16th Criminal Court of Lima recused itself from hearing the case. They state that the criminal proceedings were referred to the Fourth Supraprovincial Criminal Court which, on December 19, 2005, issued a final expansion report, indicating that the suspect Antonio Mauricio Evangelista Pinedo was a fugitive from justice and requesting an exceptional extension of the deadline, since formalities of vital importance for casting light on the incident had not been carried out. 31. They report that on May 30, 2006, the Fourth National Superior Criminal Prosecutor issued his report No. 09-2006-4 FSPN-MP/FN, requesting an additional exceptional 20-day extension of the committal stage; this was denied, as a result of which the Superior National Criminal Prosecutor filed charges against Antonio Mauricio Evangelista Pineda, requesting that he be given a 10-year custodial sentence and make a payment with the responsible third party of S 30,000.00 (thirty thousand new sols) as civil redress for each of the victims. They state that later, on October 3, 2006, the National Criminal Chamber ordered the commencement of the trial, finding that there were grounds to begin oral proceedings against Antonio Mauricio Evangelista Pinedo for the crime against the life, body and health (simple homicide) of Zulema Tarazona Arrieta and Norma Teresa Pérez Chávez and for the crime of grievous bodily harm against Luis Alberto Bejarano Laura, and declaring the accused a fugitive from justice. 32. The petitioners claim that although they insisted on the performance of necessary and effective formalities to locate and arrest Antonio Mauricio Evangelista Pinedo during 2007 and part of 2008, those efforts were insufficient. Regarding this point, they report that the accused Antonio Mauricio Evangelista Pinedo, while a warrant for his arrest was in force, exercised his right to vote in the 2006 general election, in both the first and second rounds, held on April 9 and June 4, 2006.