46 142. The Tribunal notes that as of the year 2002, the authorities opened a new investigation into the facts, at the request of the father of Mr. Anzualdo, who together with the father of another disappeared person, lodged a petition to reopen the investigation with the Office of the Special Provincial Prosecutor on Forced Disappearances, Extrajudicial Executions, and Clandestine Graves182. It fell upon the State to verify the reasons why it has not been possible to determine, up to the present, the fate of Mr. Anzualdo Castro, to locate his whereabouts, or to determine the corresponding criminal responsibility of the perpetrators, which the State did not do. Hence, it does not spring from the facts the reasons of the number and frequency of the changes made as to the authority in charge of the investigations: It spring from the evidence that said Office of the Special Provincial Prosecutor on Forced Disappearances, Extrajudicial Executions and Clandestine Graves became the Office of the Fifth Supra-Provincial Prosecutor183, which was, in turn, deactivated and the duties of the parties to a suit redistributed, and therefore, the Office of the Third Supra-Provincial Criminal Prosecutor took over the investigation, under case file No. 04-2007184. 143. In this sense, the Tribunal agrees with the representatives in that it is not clear that the changes of prosecutor’s offices assigned to the investigation or the number of case -files opened, at the same time, by the different prosecutor’s offices, favored the development and effectiveness of the investigation. On the contrary, its progress was hindered by the existence of segmented parallel inquiries regarding the alleged responsible and in which the authorities are investigating, also, different complex facts. 144. For example, on November 10, 2006 the Office of the Fifth SupraProvincial Criminal Prosecutor decided to close the preliminary investigation against former President Fujimori Fujimori185. Nevertheless, after the filing of a motion for reconsideration186 before the Superior Court, the Office of the Second Special Criminal Prosecutor for Organized Crime decided to vacate the appeal 182 Cf. Motion to reopen investigations into the abduction and forced disappearance filed by Félix Vicente Anzualdo Vicuña and Javier Roca Obregón before the Office of the Special Prosecutor on Forced Disappearances, Extrajudicial Executions and Clandestine Graves, of October 10, 2002 (record of evidence, volume V, appendix 14 to the Application, page 1767). 183 Cf. Order issued by the Office of the Special Human Rights Prosecutor of May 7, 2008 (record of evidence, volume VIII, appendix 18 to the brief of pleadings and motions, pages 3011-3013). 184 Cf. Order issued by the Office of the Special Human Rights Prosecutor of May 7, 2008 (record of evidence, volume VIII, appendix 18 to the brief of pleadings and motions, pages 3011-3013). 185 On November 10, 2006 the Office of the Fifth Supra-Provincial Criminal Prosecutor noted that the Special Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court reported that there was a proceeding under way in that venue against Alberto Fujimori Fujimori for the crime of forced disappearance to the detriment of Kenneth Ney Anzualdo Castro, and two other people, which resulted in undue interference in judicial functions [Avocamiento Indebido] and, therefore, it decided “to close the investigation until the proceeding before the Court concludes or until the latter adopts an appropriate decision with respect to the alleged participation of other persons.” Cf. Decision issued by the Office of the Fifth Supra-Provincial Criminal Prosecutor in the case file Nº 50-2002 of November 10, 2006 (record of evidence, volume V, Appendix 17 to the application, pages 1784-1785). 186 A motion for reconsideration was immediately filed with the Superior Court against such decision of November 10, 2006 in which it was mentioned that the proceedings against the former President did not involve other alleged participates; and therefore both proceedings could be conducted. Cf. motion for reconsideration filed before the Office of the Fifth Supra-Provincial Criminal Prosecutor on November 28, 2006 (record of evidence, volume V, Appendix 18 to the application, pages 1787-1789).