criminal proceeding in the military jurisdiction, the State failed to take any action for eight years. They indicated that, during the first four years, Laws Nos. 26,479 and 26,492 incorporated impunity for gross human rights violations into law, and that, during the four following years, a democratic regime was in place that failed to order ex officio a new investigation into the disappearance of Jeremías Osorio Rivera. The representatives also considered that, although the proceeding concerning Jeremías Osorio Rivera before the military jurisdiction was not archived as a result of the entry into force and application of Laws Nos. 26,479 and 26,492, they did represent a legal obstacle in the search for truth and justice for the disappearance of Jeremías Osorio Rivera, because such events could not be investigated and because constitutional control of these norms was not possible. Therefore, they concluded that “the State failed to comply with its obligation to adapt its domestic law to the American Convention, as established in Article 2 of this international instrument during the period when the amnesty laws had legal effects.” 175. The State underscored that, for the purposes of the analysis made by the Court, it would only take into account those measures ordered by the authorities and that, in principle, it was not for the Court to determine whether specific investigative actions or measures were appropriate or useful. According to the State, during the investigation, different measures were taken that responded to standards of due diligence and that, even though there may have been some omissions and delays in implementing some of them, taken as a whole, these were not sufficiently serious to constitute the State’s international responsibility for a violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and protection. The State indicated that, “at the date of the events of this case, the intervention of the military system of justice was understood to be in keeping with the standards of the Inter-American Court at that time, because the Court had not yet ruled on this matter, and with the domestic legal framework.” It concluded by indicating that the current standards established by the inter-American human rights system could not be required of the Peruvian State in this case, because this would entail their retroactive application to the case sub judice. The State pointed out that “for the effects of this case, and considering that Jeremías Osorio had supposedly been the subject of alleged enforced disappearance as of his transfer from Nunumia to Cajatambo, it was unimportant to conduct the said inspection in Nunumia.” During the public hearing, the State referred to the final judgment of the Supreme Court, which established that “regarding the record of release, the different appeals have indicated that this is merely an attempt to justify and to conceal the enforced disappearance to which the victim was subjected; however, it has not been proved that the document was a forgery.” In its final arguments, the State added that, although the supreme final judgment was published on August 27, 2013, on the Judiciary’s institutional website, the decision was taken on April 17, 2013, and not because of the public hearing. Lastly, the State indicated that the said judgment reflects and rectifies the defects identified by the Supreme Court in its first final judgment, so that it cannot be asserted that the two judges who indicated their disagreement with the first final judgment now support the second one. The State affirmed that the investigation into the facts of this case is fairly complex because it relates to a detention and subsequent disappearance; that the State’s duty to meet the requirements of justice prevails over the guarantee of a reasonable time and that the judicial authorities acted fairly promptly, and that once the State authorities became aware of the facts, the Provincial Prosecution Service for Civil and Criminal Matters opened the investigation. The State indicated that, “in this case there is no relationship between the absence of criminal responsibility of the presumed author of the crime of enforced disappearance at the domestic level, with the wording of the definition of the crime of enforced disappearance,” and that the investigations have approached the events in accordance with the crime of enforced disappearance in force in Peruvian law at the time. The supposed incorrect definition of the crime has not obstructed the implementation of the investigations or proceedings opened for the enforced disappearance of Jeremías Osorio Rivera. Added to this, according to the State, in January 2012, a proposal was presented to the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights to amend the definition of the crime of enforced disappearance, and this was forwarded to the President of the Congress of the Republic to serve as a preliminary bill to 65