Office launched investigations and on August 22 discovered four graves in the area of Pucayacu, province of Acobamba, department of Huancavelica. The graves contained the remains of 50 persons8 only one of whom had allegedly been identified by next of kin. The State indicated that on October 12, 1984, the Huanta Provincial Examining Magistrate instituted a criminal inquiry against Captain Álvaro Artaza Adrianzén for the alleged aggravated homicide of those persons. Case file No. 40-84 was thus opened. 24. The State indicated that as the court of ordinary jurisdiction instituted its inquiry, the Navy’s Permanent Court-Martial instituted an inquiry against Captain Álvaro Artaza Adrianzén (Case No. 784-84), and claimed a conflict of competence. It asserted that in November 1984, the Huanta Judge of First Instance declined to continue hearing the complaint. On April 10, 1985, the Second Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court decided jurisdiction in favor of the military justice system. 25. The State alleged that on November 17, 1985, the Navy’s Substitute Examining Judge in Lima held that the commission of a crime by the accused Álvaro Artaza Adrianzén had not been proved. On January 21, 1986, the Superior Court Martial declared that Captain Álvaro Artaza, who had been reported missing since February 2, 1986, was presumed dead.9 Reopening of the investigations in courts of ordinary jurisdiction. 26. The State’s account of the reopening of the investigations by the Office of the First Supraprovincial Prosecutor of Ayacucho was similar to that of the petitioners. It observed that on September 1, 2006, the Public Prosecutor’s Office filed a complaint against three Marine officers, accusing them of the forced disappearance of Rigoberto Tenorio Roca and of another 12 persons. It asserted that on November 28, 2006, the Second Supra-provincial Criminal Court had ruled that the complaint was groundless. 10 27. The State asserted that on September 25, 2007 the National Criminal Chamber issued a ruling that partially upheld the appeal filed by the Public Prosecutor’s Office. This ruling decided that the investigations in the case of Alberto Rivero Valdeavellano were closed; it returned the complaint to the Public Prosecutor’s Office to introduce corrections that would reflect the Criminal Chamber’s observations. Only then would the Court decide whether to open a preliminary inquiry against Adrián Huamán Centeno and Augusto Gabilondo García del Barco. 28. According to the State, the National Criminal Chamber determined that the Public Prosecutor’s Office had based the charge against military officers Adrián Huamán Centeno and Augusto Gabilondo García del Barco on the conclusions contained in the Final Report of the CVR, but had allegedly not supplied sufficient information on the “positive measures that the agents had taken or what they were expected to do to avoid the outcome, in the event they were accused of the commission of a crime by omission.”11 29. The State asserted that on February 19, 2009, the Office of the First Supra-provincial Criminal Prosecutor of Ayacucho adopted Resolution No. 071-2008-1FPS-AYA, in which it ordered exhumation of the bodies discovered in the Pucayacu graves, DNA samples taken from the discovered bodies and from next of kin, delivery of the post mortems done on the date of the discovery, preparation of a forensic medicine report on the examinations conducted, gathering of case files in military jurisdiction and the service records of the two accused military officers, and other measures. 8 The criminal complaint brought by the Office of the Supra-provincial Public Prosecutor of Ayacucho on September 1, 2006, a copy of which the petitioners enclosed with their communication of February 1, 2007, describes that the mortal remains of some 49 persons were discovered in “three” graves in the community of Pucayacu on August “23”, 1984. However, the CVR’s Final Report and copies of a portion of the court record of the proceedings conducted in the military justice system, provided by the State, state that 50 bodies were discovered in “four” clandestine graves in Pucayacu on August “22”, 1984. 9 See paragraph 22 above. 10 In its communication of June 23, 2009, the State describes that the ruling of the Second Supra-provincial Criminal Court was delivered on November 28, “2007”. However, the copy in the attached court record indicates that the decision was delivered on November 28, “2006”. 11 Communication from the State received June 23, 2009, pp. 9 and 10. 5