49 Court has established that “these provisions […] specify and complement the State’s obligations regarding compliance with the rights enshrined in the American Convention,” as well as the “international corpus juris on the 216 matter of protection of personal integrity.” 240. Finally, in its analysis the Commission will take into consideration the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, Article 1 of which provides that States undertake to “punish [...] those persons who commit or attempt to commit the crime of forced disappearance of persons and their accomplices and accessories [... and t]o take legislative, administrative, judicial, and any other measures necessary to comply with the commitments undertaken in this Convention.” 241. The Commission notes that following the detention/disappearance on July 4, 1991, of the seven children and seven adults who made up the families of Francisco Hilario Torres and Ramón Hilario Morán by members of the Army, Zósimo Hilario Quispe (the son of Francisco Hilario Torres) lodged a complaint on July 8, 1991, with the Office of the Huancavelica Special Prosecutor for Crime Prevention. Likewise, on July 8, 1991, Mr. Nicolás Hilario Morán, President of Santa Barbara campesino community lodged a complaint alleging the same acts with the prosecutor’s office and requested the prosecutor to adopt the appropriate precautionary measures. The next day, July 9, 1991, Ramón Hilario Morán’s father, Viviano Hilario Mancha, filed another complaint with the Office of the Huancavelica Special Prosecutor for Crime Prevention alleging the detention/arrest of his son, daughter-in-law, and two grandchildren by military personnel. 242. Despite the fact that in cases of forced disappearance, it is essential for prosecutorial and judicial authorities to take prompt and immediate action by ordering timely and necessary measures to determine the 217 whereabouts of the victim or the place where he or she might be deprived of liberty, the Huancavelica Mixed Provincial Prosecutor's Office merely sent an official letter to the Military and Political Chief of Ayacucho to notify him of the complaint presented by Zósimo Hilario Quispe and ask him if the detainees had been taken to Lircay Military Base, something which the Army denied in an official letter of July 11, 1991. Subsequently, on July 22, 1991, the Office of the Huancavelica Special Prosecutor for Crime Prevention resent its official letter of July 22, 1991, to the military commander of Ayacucho, requesting information about patrols carried out by Huancavelica, Lircay, Acobamba, and Mantas Military Bases on July 3 and 4, 1991; it received no reply. 243. Later, following the discovery of bodies at Misteriosa mine and based on Viviano Hilario Mancha’s complaint presented to the Provincial Prosecutor's Office on July 12, 1991, the prosecutor's office scheduled the removal of the bodies for July 14, 1991, which procedure could not be carried out. Following this, on July 17, 1991, the elders of Santa Barbara campesino community had to reiterate their request to the prosecutor’s office to set a date for the removal of the bodies, which was finally completed on July 18, 1991. The Commission notes that when the above procedure was carried out the authorities only found human remains since, as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission determined and the facts established before this Commission suggest, the leader of the Escorpio patrol ordered three soldiers to return to the abandoned mine and seal the entrance with dynamite charges, which it is very probable that they did on July 14, 1991. In addition to the above complaints, the Commission notes that on July 16, 1991, the president of Santa Barbara campesino community filed a complaint with the Office of the Special Attorney of the Ombudsman and another with the Minister of Defense alleging the same acts. However, neither complaint resulted in any action or procedural measures being taken 244. The Commission notes that, besides the inaction of the authorities in the preliminary investigation of the charges made, the families and leaders of Santa Barbara community who presented the complaints were the target of various acts of intimidation and harassment designed to persuade them to desist 216 I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Las Dos Erres” Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection. Merits. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C, No. 211, par. 137, and Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C, No. 160. pars. 276, 377 and 379. 217 I/A Court H.R, Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, Judgment of September 22, 2009, Series C No. 202, par. 134.