ruling. However, the petitioners did not supply this information in their statements. The State itself alleged –in its note received on March 4, 1997– that the aforementioned appeal was not heard by the Court, based on a unanimous decision of the Regional Court itself on March 12, 1996. The Government lodged a special appeal 4 against this decision, which was also ruled inadmissible by the Regional Federal Court. On the basis of the interlocutory appeal, the Government again lodged an appeal against this decision 5, which is still pending according to the most recent information submitted by the parties. To summarize, the petitioners allege that the lack of a ruling on the merits in the lower court after so many years have passed is proof that domestic remedies are ineffective and that the State is not committing itself to determining its responsibilities nor to punishing the perpetrators. 25. The petitioners acknowledge that the enactment of Law Nº 9140 of December 4, 1995, was an important step taken by the Brazilian State in making reparation for the violations reported. Through this law, in addition to acknowledging its responsibility for the disappearances, the State established a special commission “empowered to acknowledge the deaths of individuals who disappeared by virtue of their participation, or accusation of participation, in political activities between September 2, 1961 and August 15, 1975.” The same law provides for indemnification for persons who disappeared and were deemed to be dead. On the basis of evidence, the aforementioned Commission is also empowered to conduct searches for the guerrillas' bodies. However, the petitioners note that the State never gave any indication of burial sites, although it had military documents –confidential reports on operations carried out– that would enable graves to be located. Similarly, the law would be inadequate to the extent that it did not contemplate determination of the circumstances of death, nor identification and sanctioning of the perpetrators. Therefore, although the petitioners acknowledge the progress that enactment of this law implies, they consider it inadequate reparation. In particular, they consider that the combined application of the Amnesty Act and Law Nº 9140/95 institutionalizes impunity, and therefore contravenes the standards of the inter-American system for the protection of human rights. 26. The petitioners allege that the Government's lack of interest in establishing the facts alleged is demonstrated by various facts: first, the slow processing and lack of cooperation on the part of the State in the judicial process, in which it never submitted any of the confidential documents setting forth the facts that occurred from 1972 to 1975 in the Araguaia region. Secondly, they allege that all information about the Araguaia guerrilla movement supplied to the Special Commission established through Law Nº 9140/95 and to the Inter-American Commission comes from unofficial sources, although the documents are in fact official. Thirdly, it is alleged that when the State receives judicial instructions to supply confidential information that they are withholding regarding individuals who were subjects of action by the Brazilian intelligence services, it does not do so, or submits false or incomplete information. Fourth, the State still has on the books laws that prevent the establishment of the alleged facts, and does not now acknowledge the right of the victims' families and society in general to know the truth. 27. Based on the facts described above, the petitioners allege multiple violations of the Declaration and the American Convention. 6 In the petitioners' view, from 1972 to 1975, a military operation was carried out by the Brazilian State that led to the disappearance of over 60 guerrillas. They also alleged that, in not investigating said disappearances, nor identifying and punishing those responsible for the disappearances, the State created a situation of impunity contravening the American Convention. In terms of legal analysis, the allegations of the petitioners are: a. In conducting military operations from 1972 to 1975, the State was responsible for the disappearance of the victims and violated Article I (right to life, liberty, and personal security), Article XXV (right of protection from arbitrary arrest), and Article XXVI (right to due process of law) of the Declaration. In addition, the persisting lack of information regarding the whereabouts of the victims constitutes a continuing violation, which in turn 4 Appeal against a ruling that challenges a federal law demonstrating discrepancy in jurisprudence at subconstitutional level among the various regions. 5 Appeal against an interlocutory decision, reviewed by the higher court, in this case the Higher Court of Justice. In this case, the appeal sought to reverse the decision of the Regional Federal Court that had declared the special appeal inadmissible. 6 Brazil ratified the Convention on September 25, 1992. 4