that it is obviously impossible for the beneficiary of this plea to continue to be detained in DINCOTE since the year nineteen ninety-two; for the reasons indicated above and because the plea for guarantees is obviously inadmissible, it is hereby declared that the habeas corpus petition […] is CLEARLY INADMISSIBLE. 76 96. On March 6, 2002, the brother of the alleged victim filed an appeal challenging the ruling of February 27, 2002, arguing that “it is public knowledge [that] from 1990 to 2001 no one could exercise the present right and, because there are documents indicating that my sister was being pursued as a terrorist although she was not one, the habeas corpus petition is admissible […].” 77 97. On March 8, 2002, the 19th Criminal Court of Lima admitted the appeal and forwarded the writ to the superior court.78 On March 21, 2002, the First Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima ruled that the plea for guarantees was admissible so that a summary investigation could be carried out, and indicated the following: SECOND: that the incidents that were thus reported merit a summary investigation where it can be effectively established if she is being deprived of her liberty and, if so, to identify the police or judicial authority and the legal status of the case, requiring, to this end, that all suitable means be exhausted to achieve said objective, among which the official letter to the IMPE, gathering police, judicial, and criminal records; […] 79. 98. On May 3, 2002, after receiving the statements and records requested, the 19th Criminal Court of Lima ruled that the habeas corpus petition was groundless, because it was established that there was no record whatsoever that indicated that the alleged victim had been detained by state security agents or that she had been detained in any prison establishment. 80 Against this ruling, on May 10, 2002, Federico Díaz Aparicio filed a new appeal, and on May 30, 2002, the First Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice upheld the judgment that had declared that the habeas corpus petition was inadmissible and, at the same time, issued instructions to the Public Prosecutor’s Office so that it would proceed to investigate and clarify the complaint in line with its attributions “with respect to clues of perpetration of the crime against humanity, under the category of forced disappearance of persons, to the detriment of Teresa Díaz Aparicio.” 81 99. On September 11, 2002, the Prosecution Service Specializing in Forced Disappearances, Extrajudicial Executions, and the Exhumation of Clandestine Graves of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, ordered that investigations be started and various proceedings filed: Fourth: on the basis of the examination of documents gathered and attached herewith, it was observed that there was a failure to carry out major proceedings to achieve the purposes of the preliminary investigation, in conformity with what is set forth in the second subparagraph of Article 94, THE FOLLOWING IS HEREBY RESOLVED: REPORT knowledge 76 Annex 20. Superior Court of Justice of Lima, Tenth Criminal Court of Lima, Resolution No. 1, February 27, 2002, appearing in Annex 6 of the communication from the petitioners of May 22, 2012. 77 Annex 21. Appeal challenging the previous ruling, filed by Federico Díaz Aparicio with the 19th Criminal Court of Lima on March 6, 2002, appearing in Annex 6 of the communication from the petitioners of May 22, 2012. 78 Annex 22. Nineteenth Criminal Court of Lima, Court Notification Writ No. 06-02 for habeas Corpus LDR, dated March 8, 2002, appearing in Annex 6 of the communication from the petitioners of May 22 2012. 79 Annex 23. First Criminal Chamber, Resolution No. 137 –“A” Case file No. 108-02-HC, Lima, March 21, 2002, appearing in Annex 6 of the communication from the petitioners of May 22, 2012. 80 Annex 24. Court Resolution from the Nineteenth Criminal Court of Lima, habeas corpus petition No. 006-02 filed March 3, 2002, appearing in Annex 6 of the communication of the petitioners of May 22, 2012. 81 Annex 25. Resolution 301 “A” issued by the First Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice on May 30, 2002, appearing in Annex 6 of the communication from the petitioners of May 22, 2012.