34 166. The Commission also notes that during the first stage of the investigation, although statements were taken from the witnesses of the incident and from 2nd Sgt. Evangelista Pinedo and Cpl. Arica, once the proceedings began before the regular courts on November 25, 1994, the military authorities failed to refer, to the prosecutor’s office, both the defendant – who was subject to an arrest warrant and was in detention at a military facility – and the other members of the military patrol for them to give statements, even though the prosecutor’s office made that request on several occasions. In fact, the Army did not notify the prosecutor’s office of the names of the military patrol’s members until August 17, 1995: that is, after the Amnesty Law had been enacted and after the accused had filed the motion of res judicata. 167. The Commission notes that the criminal proceedings before the regular courts began on November 2, 1994, when the 27th Provincial Prosecutor filed charges against Sergeant Second-Class Evangelista Pinedo, and concluded on September 11, 1995, when the 27th Provincial Criminal Court of Lima upheld the motion of res judicata lodged by the accused, pursuant to the Supreme Military Justice Council’s resolution of June 20, 1995. It also notes that this occurred even though as of that date, the request for recusal filed by the military justice system on November 24, 1994, had not yet been resolved, and that the request was finally rejected at the first instance on December 12, 1995 – in other words, more than a year later, and when the proceedings had been archived more than three months earlier and, as a result of which, the decision had no impact whatsoever on the proceedings. The Commission would like to point out that in the case at hand, the opening of the criminal trial before the military courts was intended merely to hinder the investigation and punishment of the incident, as further indicated by the application of the Amnesty Law. 168. The Commission reiterates that according to the Court’s established precedent, the right of access to justice demands the effective determination of the facts under investigation and, if applicable, the imposition of the corresponding criminal sanctions within a reasonable time: in consideration of the need to uphold the rights of injured parties, a prolonged delay may constitute, in and of itself, a violation 175 of the right to a fair trial. 169. The Commission notes that the Court has already analyzed the content and scope of Amnesty Laws Nos. 26479 and 26492 in the case of Barrios Altos v. Peru, ruling in its judgment on the merits of March 14, 2001, that they “are incompatible with the American Convention [...] and, 176 consequently, lack legal effect.” Specifically, the Court ruled 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] that given the nature of the violation that amnesty laws No. 26479 and No. 26492 constitute, the decision in the judgment on the 177 merits in the Barrios Altos Case has generic effects.” 170. As a result of the above, the Commission finds that for seven years (from December 12, 1995, to January 21, 2003, when the 16th Provincial Criminal Court of Lima ordered the case removed from the archive), the victims’ next-of-kin were denied an effective remedy for asserting their rights. During the time that Amnesty Laws Nos. 26492 and 26479 remained in force, the criminal proceedings brought in connection with this case were archived, making it impossible for the state agent involved therein to be prosecuted by reason of that legislation. Consequently, for as long as they remained in force, those laws were a factor in the delay of the investigations and an obstacle to casting light on the facts, a fault for which responsibility lies with the State. 175 I/A Court H. R., Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, Judgment of September 22, 2009, Series C No. 202, para. 124. 176 I/A Court H. R., Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru, Merits, Judgment of March 14, 2001, Series C No. 75, paras. 41-44 and operative paragraph 4. 177 I/A Court H. R., Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru, Interpretation of the Judgment of the Merits, Judgment of September 3, 2001, Series C No. 83, para. 18 and operative paragraph 2.