57 assertion; 6) the statement he made to members of DINCOTE-LIMA who were investigating his case at the Yanac military base was replaced and the findings from the clarifications had been misrepresented to attribute to him a repentance that he never expressed nor admitted to. In his complaint, Mr. Galindo Cárdenas requested certified copies of the earlier investigation. 254. Then, on January 16, 1995, Mr. Galindo submitted a brief to the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation in which he filed his complaints regarding the earlier events and reported that as of that day he had still not been given the certified copies he had requested or any answer to the complaint he filed. Mr. Galindo also asked the Attorney General to give him personal guarantees, as he had learned that in response to his repeated complaints, the head of the Huánuco military-political command and officials at the Public Prosecutor’s Office who participated in his investigation, had made public statements in Huánuco to the effect that he would be arrested again on similar grounds. On January 18, 1995, Mr. Galindo sent another brief to the Attorney General’s Office, amplifying his complaint. The Commission has not been informed as to whether any action was ever taken on that complaint. 255. Based on the facts established in this case, the Commission observes that the State has not undertaken any investigation since the time Mr. Galindo filed his first complaint in late 1994, despite having knowledge of the earlier complaints and of others that Mr. Galindo filed with the Ministry of Defense of Peru and the Inspector General of the Ministry of Defense, and with the Human Rights Commission of the Democratic Constituent Congress. Nor has the Commission been informed by the State that the Attorney General of the Nation has undertaken an investigation based on the request made by the Executive Council of the Judiciary on January 17, 1995. 256. The Commission also notes that on May 8, 1998, the Public Prosecutor’s Office decided to close the record on the complaint that Mr. Galindo brought against the former Provincial Prosecutor of the Huánuco Combined Provincial Prosecutor’s Office and the former Chief Superior Prosecutor of Huánuco, for the crimes of abuse of authority, abuse of public office and breach of public duty, based on the Amnesty Law. 257. The Commission observes that in the Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru, the Court examined the content and scope of amnesty laws No. 26.479 and No. 26.492. In its judgment on the merits, dated March 14, 204 2001, it held that those laws “are incompatible with the Convention […] [and therefore] “lack legal effect.” The Court’s interpretation was that “enactment of a law that is manifestly incompatible with the obligations undertaken by a State Party to the Convention is per se a violation of the Convention for which the State incurs international responsibility [and] given the nature of the violation that Amnesty Laws No. 26479 and No. 26492 constitute, the effects of the decision in the judgment on the merits of the Barrios Altos Case are general in 205 nature.” 258. Given the circumstances, the Commission considers that the failure thus far to undertake an investigation into the facts, constitutes clear noncompliance with the duty to guarantee the rights to humane 206 treatment and personal liberty. Furthermore, that failing has created a situation of impunity and a denial of justice with respect to these events, which persists to this day. 259. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Commission concludes that the State of Peru violated the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection recognized in articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American 204 I/A Court H.R., Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C No. 75, paragraphs 41-44 and operative paragraph four. 205 I/A Court H.R., Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits. Judgment of September 3, 2001. Series C No. 83, paragraph 18 and operative paragraph two. 206 I/A Court H.R., Case of González et al. “Cotton Field”. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Paragraph 287; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140. Paragraph 142.