51 249. The Commission notes with regard to the proceeding instituted in the military jurisdiction toward the end of October 1991, that the State of Peru recognized while the case was being processed before the IACHR that, given their nature and seriousness, as well as the rights violated, the facts that are the subject of this case cannot be considered “offenses committed in the line of duty” and, therefore, it was for the ordinary jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute their alleged authors. Accordingly, the Commission reiterates that military justice should be used only to judge active-duty military officers for the alleged commission of service-related offenses, strictly speaking. Human rights violations must be investigated, tried, and punished in keeping with the law, by the regular criminal courts. Inverting the jurisdiction in cases of human rights violations should not be allowed, as this undercuts judicial guarantees, under an illusory image of the effectiveness of military justice, with grave 220 institutional consequences, which in fact call into question the civilian courts and the rule of law. In particular, the IACHR has determined that, as a result of their nature and structure, military courts do not meet the requirements of independence and impartiality imposed by Article 8(1) of the American Convention in cases 221 involving human rights violations. 250. As for the proceeding reopened at the end of 2005 when the amnesty laws were declared incompatible with the American Convention, the Commission notes that six years later only one member of the Escorpio patrol has been caught and, after the judgment at first instance against him was vacated in 2008, the proceeding was reportedly at the oral trial stage as of August 2010. The Commission notes that according to the established facts, the defendants were declared in default by the courts on January 12, 1993; in other words, before the judgment at second instance was issued in the military jurisdiction. Nevertheless, it is a fact not disputed by the State and, therefore, established in the eyes of this Commission that, even though as of 2005 there were outstanding national and international warrants for the arrest of the other accused, two of them were military personnel on active duty, according to information provided by the Provostry of the Peruvian Army to the judiciary in official letter 3575/A/5/b of December 19, 2005. The Commission has also received no information that following the reopening of the proceeding steps have been taken to remedy the flaws in the investigation pointed out by the CVR in its report. 251. The Commission notes that, as a result of the judgment of March 4, 2008, against the only accused captured (which was vacated in 2009 by the Supreme Court) an investigation was opened in 2008 by the Huancavelica Supra Provincial Criminal Prosecutor’s Office into Simón Fidel Palante for the crime of genocide to the detriment of the victims in the case, after he was identified by the military personnel who testified in the trial as the person who fired the shots that killed the eight adult and seven child victims. However, it was only in 2010 that another exhumation of the remains that were left at Misteriosa mine was carried out and blood and saliva samples were taken from the victims’ next-of-kin for the purposes of DNA analysis. In this connection, the State has not explained what happened to the remains collected 19 years ago on July 18, 1991, during the removal of the bodies and sent on July 22, 1991, to the Departmental Headquarters of the Technical Police in Lima “to ensure the best possible clarification of the facts,” or why DNA tests was not carried out earlier and what the results were of the tests performed in 2010. With respect to the importance of DNA testing, the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances noted in its General Comment on the Right to the Truth in Relation to Enforced Disappearances that the remains of the person should be clearly and indisputably identified, including through 222 DNA analysis. 220 IACHR, Application to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of Valentina Rosendo Cantú et.al. against the United Mexican States, August 2, 2009, par. 123; IACHR, Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Peru, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.106, doc. 59 rev. June 2, 2000, Chapter II, par. 214. 221 IACHR, Application to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of Valentina Rosendo Cantú et.al. against the United Mexican States, August 2, 2009, par. 126; IACHR, Report 53/01, Case 11.565 Ana Beatriz and Celia González Pérez (Mexico), April 4, 2001, par. 81. 222 See http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/disappear/docs/GC-right_to_the_truth.pdf, p. 5