50 from their complaints and to obstruct justice. In this connection, the Commission recalls that according to the established facts, the group of villagers that was on its way to the removal of the bodies scheduled for July 14, 1991, was detained by army personnel from 10:00 a.m. until 5:30 p.m., while others dynamited the mine. Furthermore, on July 18, 1991, after having found the remains of the dynamited corpses at the mine and proceeded with their collection, the technical police arrested Viviano Hilario Mancha (father and grandfather of some of the victims), Zósimo Hilario Quispe (son, brother, and uncle of other victims), and five other villagers on their return to the city of Huancavelica, most of whom were released the next day. Subsequently, on November 8, 1991, the Huancavelica technical police arrested the president of Santa Barbara campesino community, Nicolás Hilario Morán, as well as Lorenzo Quispe Huamán, when they went to give a Statement at the prosecutor's office in connection with the facts in the case, based on a complaint filed against them by the Huancavelica Superior Court prosecutor for obstruction of justice as a result of having presented false charges accusing the security forces of detentions/disappearances that never occurred. 245. As regards the disappearance of Elihoref Huamaní Vergara, his father, Alejandro Huamani Robles, having returned from Acobamba and not finding his son, filed a complaint with the Office of the Huancavelica Provincial Prosecutor for Crime Prevention on July 15, 1991, which complaint he reiterated on July 18, 1991, to the Office of the Huancavelica Senior Superior Court Prosecutor. Furthermore, on July 18, 1991, Alejandro Huamaní Robles filed for a writ of habeas corpus with Lircay and Huancavelica Examining Magistrate’s Courts, respectively. Huancavelica Examining Magistrate's Court refused the petition on July 22, 1991, on the ground that the detention of Elihoref Huamaní Vergara had not been proven. Accordingly, Alejandro Huamaní appealed that decision on August 5, 1991; however, as yet, the outcome of the appeal is unknown. Lircay Examining Magistrate's Court never issued a ruling on the petition. On July 18, 1991, Mr. Alejandro Huamaní filed two complaints: one with the commander of Lircay Military Base and the other with the commander of Huancavelica Military Base, claiming the detention/disappearance of his son by military personnel from both bases. After receiving no response, Mr. Huamaní Robles submitted another complaint on August 5, 1991, to the minister of defense, who did not respond to the complaint either. Consequently, the remedies were ineffective. 246. The Commission notes that in spite of the Peruvian State's obligation to investigate ex officio, without delay and in a serious, impartial and effective manner, in view of the seriousness of the charges, “the complaints presented by the families of the disappeared persons were in the majority of cases followed by inaction or timid and ineffective actions on the part of the judiciary and the Office of the Attorney General, [as] is borne out 218 by their lack of willingness to investigate and even obstruction of the investigation.” 247. The Commission finds that the criminal proceeding in the ordinary jurisdiction only began on February 26, 1992, more than seven months after the events occurred, following the presentation of another complaint by Zósimo Hilario Quispe on November 29, 1991, and his insistence that the prosecutor's office bring an indictment against the military personnel on trial in the military jurisdiction since late October 1991 for "excesses" against 14 peasants “alleged to be subversive criminals” from the community of Santa Barbara. 248. The Commission notes that the report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission mentions, in reference to this criminal proceeding, that, “rather than pursue the investigations, the lower criminal court in charge of the inquiry simply took down the particulars of the aggrieved, complainants, and witnesses, and asked them if they confirmed their Statements made to the Office of the Attorney General. (…) The evidentiary proceedings were very superficial and provided no further evidence connected with the events in the community of Santa Barbara on July 4, 1991. As for preliminary Statements from the accused, these are not in the record because the proceeding was carried out in the absence of the military personnel involved, who were declared in 219 default.” 218 Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Final Report, Lima: CVR, 2003, Volume VI, Chapter 1.2. Forced Disappearances, p. 110. 219 Appendix 1. Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Peru. Volume VII. Chapter 2: Cases Investigated by the CVR 2.50. The Extrajudicial Executions in Santa Barbara, Proceedings in the Judiciary.