11 62. In early 2005, the State informed the Commission that on January 3, 2005, the Office of the Superior Prosecutor Representing the Office of the Attorney General before the National Human Rights Council forwarded an official letter from the assistant prosecutor at Office of the Huancavelica Provincial Prosecutor, which said that, in accordance with the judgment on merits adopted in the Barrios Altos case by the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights on March 14, 2001, Amnesty Laws 26479 and 26492 were declared incompatible with the American Convention on Human Rights and, therefore, lacked legal effect, for which reason he requested the Prosecutor General of the Nation to reopen the criminal proceeding against Infantry Lieutenant Javier Bendezú Vargas and others for genocide and other offenses to the detriment of Francisco Hilario Torres and others, and that the proceeding in question be referred to the Supreme Court of Justice so that, subject to the opinion of the Supreme Court Prosecutor, the case in question be ordered reopened. 63. The State said, “The acts perpetrated in the community of Santa Barbara constitute a violation of the rights to freedom, life and physical integrity recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. Those instruments were in force at the time that the deeds were committed.” 64. The State noted with respect to the acts under investigation that, given their nature and seriousness, as well as the rights violated, they constitute crimes covered by ordinary criminal law and international instruments for protection of human rights, and therefore could not in any circumstances be considered offenses committed in the line of duty. The State argued, therefore, it was for the ordinary jurisdiction, through the appropriate authorities of the Office of the Attorney General and the judicial branch, to investigate and prosecute the alleged authors and anyone else responsible for these acts. 65. In September 2010, the State informed the IACHR that the criminal trial of Javier Bendezú Vargas et al. for crimes against humanity in the form of genocide was referred on November 14, 2006, by the Transitional Mixed Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Huancavelica to the National Criminal Chamber. The State indicated that the proceedings were at the oral stage, specifically, the questioning of the defendant Oscar Carrera González, who was on restricted release to ensure his appearance at trial. As for the other accused (Javier Bendezú Vargas, Duilio Chipana Tarqui, Fidel Gino Eusebio Huaytalla, and Dennis Wilfredo Pacheco Zambrano), the State noted that they were classified as defendants in default. The State holds that it is proceeding with the criminal trial and has ordered a series of procedures and steps to elucidate the alleged facts, determine the whereabouts of the victims, and identify and punish those responsible. 66. In 2011, the State argued that, given the existence of an ongoing criminal proceeding in the domestic jurisdiction, the petitioners were distorting the nature of the inter-American system for protection of human rights by denying its subsidiary character. The State holds that, although, at first, the members of the Peruvian Army benefited from Amnesty Law 26479 in January 1997 and were freed, the State itself, through its independent administration of justice later ordered the criminal proceedings to be reopened and the alleged authors retried, in accordance with the judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 14, 2001 (Barrios Altos case), which found that Amnesty Laws 26479 and 26492 were incompatible with the American Convention on Human Rights and, therefore, lacked legal effect. The State says that since then the criminal prosecution of the authors of these regrettable events on the charge of genocide has continued in Huancavelica and in Lima. The State is of the view that, at all events, its alleged responsibility in the case should be judged as of the adoption into domestic law of the consequences of the abrogation of the above amnesty laws. 67. The State informed the Commission that, at December 23, 2010, the proceeding against former noncommissioned officer Oscar Alberto Carrera González, was at the trial stage (oral proceedings) and that pertinent testimony was being heard. The State also said that in 2008 the Huancavelica Supra Provincial Criminal Prosecutor's Office opened an investigation into the complaints made against former noncommissioned officer Simón Fidel Palante and that various procedures had been carried out in that investigation, including exhumation of the remains of the victims and the taking of blood samples from the next-of-kin for DNA analysis.