29 91 violations.” Accordingly, the IACHR recommended “that the Peruvian State repeal the Amnesty Law (26479) and the Law on Judicial Interpretation (26492) because they are incompatible with the American Convention, and investigate, try, and punish the State agents accused of human rights violations, especially violations that amount 92 to international crimes. 153. On March 14, 2001, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights passed judgment in the Barrios Altos Case and found that Amnesty Laws 26479 and 26492 were incompatible with the American Convention on 93 Human Rights and, consequently, lacked legal effect. Subsequently, the Inter-American Court issued a judgment interpreting its judgment on merits and found that, given the nature of the violation that amnesty laws 26479 and 94 26492 constituted, the decision in the judgment on the merits in the Barrios Altos Case had generic effects. The Reopening of the Criminal Proceeding 154. On May 5, 2004, the Office of the Huancavelica Criminal Prosecutor, taking into consideration the investigation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission on the events in the case, as well as the judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Barrios Altos case v. Peru of March 13, 2001, which ruled that amnesty laws 26479 and 26492 were incompatible with the American Convention on Human Rights, decided to send an official letter to the Prosecutor General requesting that she contact the Office of the President of the Supreme Court with a view to reopening criminal case 93-027, which had been closed on July 4, 1995, when the 95 defendants were granted amnesty. On May 26, 2004, the Huancavelica Provincial Criminal Prosecutor presented 96 the above request to the Prosecutor General, Nelly Calderón Navarro. 155. On June 24, 2004, the Huancavelica Provincial Criminal Prosecutor asked the Prosecutor General to request the Supreme Court to order the case to be reopened, subject to the opinion of the Supreme Court 97 Prosecutor. 156. On November 10, 2005, the Office of the Attorney General in Huancavelica said that the criminal proceeding should continue from the stage that it had reached when the decision of July 4, 1995, was issued, and 98 that, therefore, a date should be set for the hearing. 157. On November 14, 2006, the registry office of the Transitional Mixed Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice in and for Huancavelica referred the case to the National Criminal Chamber in Lima, because the 99 Mixed Chamber lacked jurisdiction. 91 IACHR, Annual Report 1996, Chapter V, Part 4, Section IV.C. 92 IACHR, Annual Report 1996, Chapter V, Part 4, Section VIII.6. 93 I/A Court H.R., Barrios Altos Case. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C, No. 75, operative paragraph 4. 94 I/A Court H.R., Barrios Altos Case. Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits (Art. 67 American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of September 3, 2001. Series C, No. 83, operative paragraph 3. 95 Appendix 36. Office of the Attorney General, Office of the Huancavelica Government Attorney for Human Rights, Forced Disappearances, Extrajudicial Executions, and Exhumation of Secret Graves, May 5, 2004, Signed by Dr. Aurorita G. de la Cruz. Appendix to the State’s brief of January 28, 2005. 96 Appendix 37. Official letter 825-2004-FPPE-DH-DF-EE-EFC-MP of May 6, 2004. Appendix to the State’s brief of January 28, 2005. 97 Appendix 38. Official letter 1035-2004-MP-FPP-HUANCAVELICA of June 24, 2004, Huancavelica Provincial Criminal Prosecutor’s Office. Appendix to the State’s brief of January 28, 2005. 98 Appendix 39. Office of the Attorney General, Huancavelica Mixed Provincial Prosecutor's Office, Opinion No. 22/2005-VARIOS, Case No. 1993-027, Accused: Javier Bendezú Vargas et al.; Charge Genocide and others; Aggrieved: Francisco Hilario Torres et al., November 10, 2005. Appendix to the State’s brief of July 25, 2007.