14 means that the American Convention provides for justifying non-fulfillment of the admissibility requirements stipulated in Article 46(2) of the Convention. The State argues that none of the exceptions contained in Article 46(2) of the American Convention applies to the instant case as it currently stands, given that due legal process exists under Peruvian domestic law to protect the rights allegedly violated. In this connection, the State mentions that since the time that Amnesty Laws 26479 and 26492 were declared incompatible with the American Convention and, therefore, lacking in legal effect, there have been two criminal proceedings underway. 81. In the instant case, the Commission notes that on July 8, 1991, Mr. Zósimo Hilario filed a complaint with the Office of the Huancavelica Special Prosecutor for Crime Prevention alleging the detention/disappearance of his parents, Francisco Hilario Torres and Dionicia Quispe Mallqui; his sisters, Antonia Hilario Quispe and Magdalena Hilario Quispe; his sister-in-law, Mercedes Carhuapoma de la Cruz; his nieces, Yassenia Osnayo Hilario, Miriam Osnayo Hilario, and Roxana Onayo Hilario; and his nephew Alex Jorge Hilario, who were allegedly taken away by 50 soldiers and civilians toward the district of Lircay on July 4, 1991. 82. Likewise, on July 8, 1991, Mr. Nicolás Hilario Morán, President of Santa Barbara campesino community lodged a complaint with the Office of the Huancavelica Provincial Prosecutor for Crime Prevention alleging the detention/disappearance on July 4, 1991, of 14 people from the community, including elderly persons and children, who were reportedly led away by army personnel and seven civilians. Mr. Hilario Morán also requested the prosecutor to adopt the appropriate precautionary measures. Subsequently, on July 16, 1991, Mr. Nicolás Hilario Morán presented a complaint to the Minister of Defense. 83. Furthermore, Mr. Viviano Hilario Mancha, the father of Ramón Hilario Morán, lodged a complaint with the Office of the Huancavelica Special Prosecutor for Crime Prevention on July 9, 1991, in which he Stated that the Army had taken away his son, his son's wife (Dionicia Guillén Riveros), and their two minor children. Later, on July 16, 1991, Nicolás Hilario Morán, filed another complaint with the Office of the Special Attorney of the Ombudsman alleging the above acts. 84. As for Elihoref Huamaní Vergara, who was detained by an army patrol while walking to Acobamba with his father on July 4, 1991, his father, Alejandro Huamaní Robles, filed for a writ of habeas corpus, first with Lircay Examining Magistrate’s Court, and then with Huancavelica Examining Magistrate's Court, on July 18, 1991. Huancavelica Examining Magistrate’s Court rejected the petition on July 22, 1991, which decision was appealed on August 5, 1991; the outcome of the appeal remains unknown. For its part, Lircay Examining Magistrate's Court did not respond to the habeas corpus petition presented. In addition, on July 18, 1991, Mr. Alejandro Huamaní filed two complaints: one with the commander of Lircay Military Base and the other with the commander of Huancavelica Military Base, claiming the detention/disappearance of his son by military personnel from both bases. Neither complaint received a reply. Subsequently, on August 5, 1991, Mr. Alejandro Huamaní Robles sent a letter to the Minister of Defense. 85. The Commission notes that Mr. Zósimo Hilario Quispe had to present another complaint on November 29, 1991, so that the office of the prosecutor might file the respective criminal charges with the examining magistrate's court. Furthermore, Mr. Zósimo Hilario Quispe requested the Prosecutor General on December 4, 1991, that the offenders be tried in the ordinary courts and, on February 5, 1992, presented a jurisdictional plea to the Peruvian Army’s Second Judicial District, which was settled in June 1993 by the Supreme Court of Justice, which ruled in favor of the ordinary jurisdiction. 86. The Commission finds that while it is true that, as a result of the above-alleged acts, two criminal proceedings were instituted: one in the military jurisdiction toward the end of October 1991, and the other in the ordinary jurisdiction on February 26, 1992, the Criminal Chamber of Huancavelica Superior Court ruled on July 4, 1995, that Amnesty Law 26479 was applicable, and so the civil case was closed. This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court on January 4, 1997. 87. The Commission notes that on May 5, 2004, that is, almost 13 years after the events, the Office of the Huancavelica Criminal Prosecutor decided to send an official letter to the Prosecutor General requesting