provisions in the terms of Articles 2 of the American Convention and III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. The Commission added that the acquittal was decided based on article 320 of the Peruvian Criminal Code because this article defines the analytical framework for the judges in cases of enforced disappearance, limiting the use of indicative evidence, which is so crucial in these cases. It concluded that the said judgment reveals the structural defects in the investigation of enforced disappearances. The Commission stated that the promulgation of Laws Nos. 26,479 and 26,492 obstructed the obligation to provide truth and justice to the members of Jeremías Osorio Rivera’s family by regulating the prohibition to prosecute crimes committed by State agents or civilians as a result of the counter-terrorism efforts. The Commission added that, even though these laws were not applied in the decision to dismiss the criminal complaint, they preventing the opening of new investigations to clarify the facts of the case. According to the Commission, all the above constituted a violation of the rights recognized in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. 174. The representatives agreed with the Commission’s arguments and, also, stated that the proceedings opened based on the complaint filed by Porfirio Osorio Rivera did not achieve the expected results and that extremely important measures were not taken during the investigation. In their final arguments, the representatives indicated that the investigation into the disappearance of Jeremías Osorio Rivera was opened at the request of Porfirio Osorio Rivera and not ex officio, as it should have been in this type of case. The representatives recalled that the intervention of the military system of justice as a jurisdiction to investigate, prosecute and punish the authors of gross human rights violations is contrary to the American Convention. They asserted that the only purpose of this jurisdiction was to remove those accused of very serious crimes from criminal prosecution in the ordinary jurisdiction and to ensure their impunity. Consequently, the representatives considered that the State had violated the right to an ordinary judge and to due process of law, which is closely related to the right of access to justice of the victim and his family members. The representatives indicated that, in the new investigation, measures were not taken to locate the victim’s remains, to reconstruct the events, to inspect the Cajatambo Contra-subversive Military Base, or to obtain information on those who served in it. They added that, in this new investigation, the State had merely repeated the accusations made during the initial investigation, after taking some statements that had been requested in the days following the events. They also referred to the ruling declaring that the judgment deciding the acquittal was final, because “it is surprising that the ruling was delivered one day before the hearing before the Inter-American Court”; also, that two of the judges who signed the ruling had previously, following the first annulment, denied credibility to the release document and the testimony received, yet failed to explain in this ruling the fact that made them change their minds with regard to these two points on which the acquittal was based. According to the representatives, “the State agencies not only failed to respect due diligence, but also generated impunity, because their actions were aimed at concealing the authors of the acts of this crime.” The representatives also argued the violation of the right to the truth of the victim and his family, which they consider is protected by both Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. Furthermore, the representatives argued the failure to define the crime of enforced disappearance adequately in article 320 of the Peruvian Criminal Code. Likewise, they referred to plenary decision 09-2009/CJ116, indicating that it had created a loophole for impunity with regard to events that had occurred before April 8, 1991, the date on which the crime of enforced disappearance had been incorporated into Peruvian law. They added that, the said decision supposes a State practice that deviates from the case law of the Inter-American Court and that, although it is not a legislative measure, but rather a measure adopted by the State, its contents limit the enjoyment of the rights recognized by the American Convention, to the detriment of the victims of enforced disappearance and their next of kin, thus failing to comply with the obligation imposed by Article 2 of the American Convention. The representatives indicated that, following the confirmation of the dismissal of the case in the 64