13 c) In relation to the case file N° 2007-00765-0-1501-JR-PE-07 of the Seventh Criminal Trial Court of Huancayo, for the alleged crime of “extortion” to the detriment of Héctor Capcha Canchaya, that Mr. Ramirez Hinostroza was confined “to a penitentiary center of Huamancaca Chico [of Huancayo], without having the court hearing the case assessed several documents [presented]” or the statement rendered by a witness. They further alleged that, in this proceeding, the right to due process was violated to the detriment of Mr. Ramirez Hinostroza and that the judgment of the Superior Court of Junin, which overturned the condemnatory judgment against Mr. Ramirez Hinostroza, “proved that the judges of the [t]rial [c]ourt [...] have committed a series of irregularities [and behaved improperly], under the influence of the Police Commander, which have resulted in procedural defects.” Then, they further alleged that on September 15, 2009 the Seventh Trial Court Specialized in Criminal Matters of Huancayo entered Judgment N° 204-2009, by means of which it acquitted Luis Alberto Ramirez Hinostroza of the crime of extortion, and d) In relation to the statement made as to case file N° 115-VIII-DIRTEPOLRPJ-J-CT-SEINCRI of September 29, 2005, for the Crime against the Public Administration, causing injuries to a police officer and damaging a police vehicle, that an investigation has been carried out against Antonio Ramirez Hinostroza (brother of Luis Alberto). In relation to case file N° 76-06-VII-DIRTEPOL-RPNPJCSJ-A/SEINCRI of September 1, 2006, for the Crime against Public SafetyEndangerment, Illegal Weapons Possession, Mr. Ramirez Hinostroza had appeared to render a statement and complied with the mandates of the court, and they pointed out that “such facts were made up by the National Police of Peru.” Finally, regarding case file N° 174-2006-VIII- DIRTEPOL-RPJ-CT-SEINCRI, of October 23, 2006, for the Crime against Property- Aggravated Robbery, it is against José Noé Ramirez Hinostroza (brother of Luis Alberto). 38. The Commission took note of the fact that a domestic court decided to overturn the judgment that had sentenced Mr. Ramirez Hinostroza to ten years’ imprisonment and ordered his release. 39. The Court notes that criminal investigations have been conducted against Mr. Ramirez Hinostroza and that the representatives alleged that such investigations are not sufficiently substantiated and that they consist of reprisals against him (supra Considering clauses 34 and 37). 40. The Tribunal does not have further evidence regarding the alleged act of harassment committed against Mr. Ramirez Hinostroza and, moreover, it is not appropriate, in the procedure related to the implementation of these provisional measures, to conduct a consideration on the merits in order to decide whether the criminal investigations comply with the law or, on the contrary, are not in line with the provisions of the American Convention (supra Considering clause 28). 41. Without detriment to the foregoing, the Court notes that in one of these proceedings, related to an alleged extortion for the sum of thirty new soles (equivalent, approximately, to ten dollars of the United States of America), a trial court, based on the statement rendered by only one person, who had not witnessed the incident and without any an statement rendered by the alleged aggrieved party or other witnesses, sentenced