sanctions. They allege that on April 29, 2008, the National Criminal Court instituted judicial proceedings, declaring that grounds existed to subject the accused to an oral trial. 12. The petitioners affirmed that on December 17, 2008, the National Criminal Court issued an acquittal, alleging reasonable doubt as to the responsibility of Juan Carlos Tello Delgado for the acts of which he was accused. According to the allegation, the Criminal Court found that the disappearance of Jeremías Osorio Rivera had been proven, but found that the defendant, Juan Carlos Tello Delgado, had released him, and that this was demonstrated by the slip of paper, allegedly signed by Mr. Osorio Rivera, entitled “certificate of release.” The petitioners said that a handwriting analysis conducted by the Criminology Directorate of the National Police at the beginning of 1991 had indicated that the fingerprint on that paper did not match that of Jeremías Osorio Rivera. They argued that the circumstances of his detention showed that any signature he might have affixed to the paper would have been coerced by the members of the Army patrol, and that it had not been evaluated by the National Criminal Court. 13. The petitioners said that on December 18, 2008, they presented, in their capacity as civil party to the proceedings, an appeal to void the acquittal issued by the National Criminal Court. They said that on February 23, 2009, the appeal was found admissible and placed before the Supreme Court of Justice. According to the information presented, as of May 2010 that Court had not set a date for consideration on the merits of the appeal. 14. The petitioners argued that, despite the reopening of investigations under ordinary jurisdiction in September 2004, the Peruvian Judiciary had not taken all necessary measures to ascertain the facts surrounding the alleged forced disappearance of Jeremías Osorio Rivera and to punish those responsible. They noted that the promulgation of Amnesty Laws 26479 and 26492 encouraged impunity, since their entry into force hindered the opening of investigations and the trial of soldiers allegedly involved. 15. Lastly, the petitioners cited and attached a document signed by a staff member of the Office of the Defender of the People on September 13, 2006, which certifies that Mr. Jeremías Osorio Rivera has been missing, by way of forced disappearance, since he was last seen in the province of Cajatambo, department of Lima, on April 30, 1991 2. B. Position of the State 16. The State affirmed that the petition did not meet the requirement set forth in Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention, since it had been presented to the IACHR more than six month after the notice of the final dismissal issued on February 7, 1996, by the Supreme Council of Military Justice. According to the State, notice of that dismissal had been given to Mr. Porfirio Osorio Rivera on September 25, 1996. The State provided a narrative similar to that of the petitioners concerning the actions of the Office of the Public Prosecutor and Judiciary surrounding the complaint presented on June 14, 2004, by Mr. Porfirio Osorio Rivera to the Office of the Special Prosecutor on Forced Disappearances, Extrajudicial Executions, and Exhumation of Clandestine Graves. 17. It indicated that the acquittal issued on December 17, 2008, by the National Criminal Court had given rise to the presentation of a motion to void, which was transmitted to the Second Provisional Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. It indicated that on December 31, 2009, the hearing of this appeal was transferred to the First Provisional Criminal Chamber, which, as of April 2010, had not set a date for consideration on the merits of the appeal. 18. As for the situation of impunity alleged by the petitioners, the State affirmed that the obligation to investigate supposed violations of fundamental rights “pertains to means, not to results.” It argued that the impartial and independent actions of the judicial authorities since the complaint was presented by Mr. Porfirio Osorio Rivera on June 14, 2004, demonstrated that efforts had been made to investigate, prosecute, and punish those responsible for the 2 Communication of the petitioners, received on March 9, 2010, attached, document entitled “Certificate of Absence by Forced Disappearance,” issued on September 13, 2006, by the Office of the Defender of the People in Lima, record number 0193. 3