38 “was hearing a case related to the same facts referred to in this complaint" (infra para. 80(42)). Upon sending the case on jurisdiction to the Superior Criminal Prosecutor´s Office, on August 23, 1993, it declined jurisdiction again. The APRODEH and the next of kin of the alleged victims filed a complaint appeal against said decisions and on September 16, 1993 the Fifth Superior Criminal Prosecutor´s Office remanded the case to the Eighth Prosecutor´s Office; APRODEH moved for the nullity of said decision, but on November 30, 1993, the Fifth Prosecutor´s Office dismissed the motion and the decision whereby the prosecutor declined jurisdiction was then final and conclusive.33 80(24) On the other hand, on February 8, 1993, Jaime Oyague-Velazco reported the disappearance of his niece, Dora Oyague-Fierro, to the then President of Perú, Alberto Fujimori; to the Attorney General´s Office of the Nation, on February 9, 1993; to the President of the Committee on Human Rights of the Constituent Democratic Congress, on March 4, 1993 and to the Chairman of Congress, on April 12, 1993.34 The precise outcome of said actions are unknown. The Investigation Commission created by the so-called “Constituent Democratic Congress” and related issues 80(25) On April 2, 1993, Congressman Henry Pease-García stated that he had received a document from a group of the Army self-called “León Dormido” (Sleeping Lion) whereby it pointed out that the nine students and the professor of La Cantuta University had been murdered during a military operation, and top officials of the Army and of the Intelligence Service were identified as perpetrators of the killing. 80(26) Due to the abovementioned statements, the “Constituent Democratic Congress” created an investigation committee composed of five Congressmen (hereinafter the “Investigation Committee,”) which gathered information related to the investigations made by the Attorney General´s Office, the Judicial Power, and the military courts, as well as documentation from other public entities. The Investigation Committee heard the testimonies of the next of kin of the alleged victims, boarders and authorities of La Cantuta University and of General Nicolás de Bari Hermoza-Ríos, the then Commander General of the Army, among others. 80(27) On April 20, 1993 the then Commander General Hermoza-Ríos gave testimony before the Investigation Committee and denied any intervention or participation of the Army in the disappearance of the professor and the nine students of La Cantuta University and argued that the accusations were made by persons or groups that opposed to the pacification policy of the Government, with the purpose of damaging the prestige of the military institution. When leaving the Congress, General Hermoza-Ríos said to the press that the Congressmen of the opposition were acting “in collusion with the terrorists” and also accused them of participating in “the orchestration of a well-thought and planned campaign to impair the prestige and honor of the Peruvian Army.” 80(28) The day following the date when General Hermoza-Ríos gave testimony, the Peruvian Army issued an official communication whereby it stated its adherence and support 33 Cf. Resolution of November 30, issued by 5th Criminal Prosecutor´s Office (record of appendixes to the application, appendix 24(cc), p. 895). 34 3480). Cf. Affidavit signed by José Esteban Oyague-Velazco on September 8, 2006 (record of affidavits, folio