7. The petitioners say that one of the soldiers, who they identify as Antonio Mauricio Evangelista Pinedo, Sergeant Second Class with the Peruvian Army, then shot directly at the vehicle, killing Mrs. Zulema Tarazona Arriate and Mrs. Norma Teresa Pérez Chávez and injuring Mr. Luis Alberto Bejarano Laura. They add that, rather than helping the victims, the soldiers fled. 8. The petitioners say that two judicial proceedings were launched in relation to these events. The first was in the judicial branch, before the 27th Criminal Court of Lima, for the offenses of murder and inflicting injury, against Sergeant Second Class Antonio Mauricio Evangelista Pinedo; the second was against the same individual in the military courts before the Permanent War Council of the Army’s Second Police Zone for negligent homicide. 9. They indicate that on June 20, 1995 the Supreme Council of Military Justice, applying amnesty laws Nº 26479 and 26492, enacted by the Peruvian Congress on June 14 and 28, 1995, respectively, granted the defendant amnesty, decided to take no further action in the case, and ordered the release of the defendant. 10. They add that on September 11, 1995, the 27th Criminal Court of Lima definitively tabled the case it was hearing, in response to a res judicata exception filed based on the aforementioned decision handed down on June 20, 1995 by the Supreme Council of Military Justice. 11. Regarding the State’s allegation that the petitioners failed to exhaust domestic remedies because they did not take judicial action to seek compensation for the victims or their family members for the events that occurred, the petitioners cite that their petition is centered on the failure to investigate and punish the person responsible for violating the victims’ rights to life and to humane treatment, among others. 12. They add that, without detriment to the foregoing, the victims’ relatives became parties to the criminal case to seek civil compensation, in accordance with the provisions of Article 92 of the Peruvian Penal Code and the provisions of Articles 54 seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but that their action was frustrated when the case was tabled as a result of the amnesty laws. Finally, they indicate that those laws prevent any type of investigation into the alleged events with a view to obtaining civil reparations. B. The State 13. In its initial reply on July 1, 1996, the State neither expressly accepted nor contradicted the petitioners’ allegations. The State’s reply read as follows: The Permanent Mission of Peru presents its compliments to the honorable Executive Secretariat of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights regarding case Nº 11.581. It is attaching to this note a copy of the main decisions handed down by the judiciary against citizen Evangelista Pinedo Antonio, prosecuted for the negligent homicide of Zulema Tarazona Arriarte et al. (File Nº 431-94-EDT). This information was remitted by the National Human Rights Council through communication Nº 405-96JUS/CNDH of June 10 of this year. 14. In a letter dated May 21, 1998, Peru stated the following: The Peruvian State reiterates the points expressed in its reply to the pertinent parts of the complaint, i.e. that the petitioners have not exhausted domestic remedies, and specifically have not sought compensation, which is a necessary step for persons who wish to obtain civil reparations for damages, as provided for in Article 1969 of the Civil Code of Peru. 2