72. They say that on September 9, 1986, the families of Abraham Muskatblit Eidelstein and Felipe Segundo Rivera Gajardo filed applications for relief (amparo), and that the families of the alleged victims filed various petitions and criminal complaints which were examined under a single investigation and joined under the case known as “Operation Albania,” which was processed by the Sixth Court of First Instance for Criminal Matters in and for Santiago and was later heard by a special visiting judge, on instructions from the Supreme Court. The petitioners say that on December 29, 2006, judgment was returned at first instance and 14 people were sentenced to terms ranging from 5 to 18 years' imprisonment for the crimes of aggravated homicide. That ruling was upheld by the Santiago Appellate Court on December 27, 2007. The petitioners say that on August 13, 2009, the Supreme Court, upon examining applications for cassation alleging material errors, vacated the judgment sua sponte, as it considered that the ruling at first instance had omitted any pronouncement on the partial statute of limitations requested by the accused, which, the petitioners say, is not true. The petitioners say that the Court proceeded to issue a substitute judgment in which it applied the mitigating circumstances of irreproachable past conduct and due obedience, and declared that the statutory time period had partially lapsed. They say that the Supreme Court lowered the 18-year sentence to 12 years, the 13-year sentences to 7 years, and all the other sentences to 5 years. They say that the Court applied partial statutory limitations to 11 convicted individuals and granted them the benefit of supervised release. 8. Case of Félix Santiago de la Jara Goyeneche and family 73. On March 4, 2010, the petitioners expanded the complaint filed on behalf of Félix Santiago de la Jara Goyeneche and his family. They say that he was a member of MIR and was detained in the city of Santiago on November 27, 1974, by a group of DINA personnel and taken to the clandestine detention center known as Venda Sexy or La Discoteque, where he was tortured. They say that between December 18 and 24, 1974, he was removed by his captors from the detention center and that his whereabouts remain unknown to this day. 74. The petitioners say that on January 3, 1975, an application for relief (amparo) was filed with the Santiago Appellate Court, which was rejected on February 13, 1975. The record was then referred to the Fifth Court of First Instance for Criminal Matters in and for Santiago. They say that the case was provisionally dismissed in October 1975 on the ground that there was no evidence of the crime. They say that the dismissal was approved by the Appellate Court. According to the petitioners, on July 3, 1975, a new application for relief was filed but on July 15, 1975, that too was denied. 75. They say that on July 24, 1996, the CNRR requested that the preliminary inquiry be reopened and the investigation began again. After a special visiting judge was appointed to examine the matter, the petitioners say that on April 2, 2007, judgment was returned at first instance, sentencing Juan Manuel Contreras to five years and one day of imprisonment as the perpetrator of the crime of aggravated kidnapping, and Raúl Iturriaga Neumann, Manuel Carevic Cubillos, and Risiere Altez España to three years' imprisonment. The latter three were reportedly granted a suspended sentence. The petitioners say that the Appellate Court upheld the judgment on July 31, 2008. 76. They say that on September 10, 2009, the Supreme Court, upon examining the applications for cassation, vacated the judgment sua sponte and issued a substitute judgment, applying the benefit of partial lapse of the statutory period of limitations. Consequently, none of the convicted men was deprived of liberty in that proceeding; Juan Manuel Contreras was sentenced to five years imprisonment with the benefit of supervised release while the others, who were sentenced to three years' imprisonment, had their sentences suspended. 9. Case of Cecilia Miguelina Bojanic Abad, Flavio Arquímides Oyarzún Soto and their families 77. On March 25, 2010, the petitioners expanded the complaint lodged on behalf of Cecilia Miguelina Bojanic Abad, Flavio Arquímides Oyarzún Soto and their families. 78. The petitioners say that Cecilia Miguelina Bojanic Abad, who was a member of MIR and four months pregnant at the time of the events, was detained together with her one-year-old son at her home on 13