6 c) d) e) Ashuy for the crime of “abuse of authority, violence and for disobeying authority and against freedom of work” 12. By means of the resolution of June 20, 1997, the Solicitor General’s Office decided “[Not to accept] the criminal complaint filed”13; On February 21, 1999, Mr. Javier Mujica Ruíz Huidrobo filed a criminal complaint against Mr. Martin Naranjo Landerer for the crimes of “abuse of authority and unjustified delay in the ordinary payment”14. By means of the resolution of August 26, 1999, the Solicitor General’s Office of Peru decided “[Not to accept] the criminal complaint filed against Martin Naranjo Landerer”15; On December 27, 2001, the Criminal Trial Court issued a decision in relation to the complaints referred to above (supra Considering clause 12.a), and indicated that "the commission of the crime against the Public Administration- Misappropriation of Funds and Embezzlement and the criminal responsibility" of Mr. Luis Cortavarria Checkley and Claudio Sarmiento Molina has not been proven. In addition, it pointed out that “the defense based on statute of limitations for the crime against the Public Administration - violence and disobeying the authority- was uphold ex officio”16; On June 12, 2003 the Primera Sala Penal de Procesos con Reos Libres [First Criminal Court] of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima declared "there are not grounds to bind Luis Cortavarria Checkley and Claudio Sarmiento Molina over to trial for the crime against the Public Administration –Embezzlement and Misappropriation of Funds- to the detriment of, among other people, Javier Mujica Ruis Huidrobo, Carlos Torres Benvenuto, Guillermo Alvarez Hernández and the State”. As basis of said decision, the Superior Court of Justice of Lima indicated that "from the analysis of the evidence furnished during the preliminary proceedings, it spring that the charges brought against the accused have disappeared upon the decision that they acted under the terms of Decree-Law [N° 25.792] published in 'El Peruano’ official gazette on [October 23, 1992], and it was also ruled out that they had transferred the Pensions Funds to their private sphere or to third parties or that they had appropriated the money to some purpose other than the one it was intended to”17, and 12 Cf. criminal complaint filed before the on-duty Solicitor General on March 12, 1997 (record on monitoring compliance, Volume IV, pages 1059 to 1105). 13 Cf. criminal complaint filed before the on-duty Solicitor General on June 30, 1997 (record on monitoring compliance, Volume IV, page 1106). 14 Cf. criminal complaint filed before the on-duty Solicitor General on February 21, 1999 (record on monitoring compliance, Volume IV, pages 1113 to 1117). 15 Cf. criminal complaint filed before the on-duty Solicitor General on August 26, 1999 (record on monitoring compliance, Volume IV, page 1118 and 1124). 16 See “final reports" of case file N° 22-90 of December 27, 2001 (record on monitoring compliance, volume IV; pages 1074 and 1093). 17 Cf. resolution issued by the Primera Sala Penal de Procesos con Reos Libres [First Criminal Chamber] of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima on June 12, 2003 (record on monitoring compliance, volume IV; pages 1094 and 1095).