(…) on the base of the documents of the proceedings, it can be determined that, despite efforts made in the preliminary steps of the present case, aimed at identifying, locating, and capturing the alleged perpetrators, to date no positive result has been obtained […] therefore it is not appropriate to formalize or continue the preparatory investigation and the present investigation should be archived. […] (…) From the concrete case it can be deduced, in principle, that in terms of the time-limits for the investigation being referred to, it was extended for 120 calendar days so as to achieve the goal of said identification, although the perpetrators of the incident were not identified and that this presumption is sine qua non (sic) to be able to proceed with the investigation, otherwise, the prosecutor has no other option but to archive the case. 132 141. In the ruling of the First Provincial Corporate Criminal Prosecution Office of Tocache, in its third considering clause on Reasons in Fact, it was pointed out: That, although it is certain that, from observing the proceedings comprising the criminal case to date, it can be concluded that the crime has been accredited on the basis of the statement made by the complainant Consuelo Seijas Landa and other evidence, […] at that time, the area of Huallaga, specifically the province of Tocache, was in a state of exception (emergency status), protected by the Political Constitution of the State, incidents that would occur with the limitation on the rights of citizens, and as a result police agents would act without any personal identification [...] thus breaching the basic rights of all persons; that the alleged perpetrators members of the National Police acted in unprecedented and macabre ways…; that when investigating the facts, the government itself that ruled at that time […] was the obstacle to clarifying the facts.133 142. In its communication of March 20, 2014, the state stressed that, in the same ruling, it decided to instruct “[…] the Police Station of the PNP having jurisdiction to continue the investigation and to identify those allegedly responsible for the crime.”134 143. Likewise, the state indicated that, in accordance with Article 12 of the Basic Law of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the petitioners had the possibility of filing with the Superior Prosecution Service an appeal complaining about or challenging the decision to provisionally archive the case.”135 5. Cory Clodolia Tenicela Tello (case 12.823) 144. According to the account of the petitioners, Cory Clodolia Tenicela Tello, 32 years old, was a student at the National University of the Center of Peru and sold beauty care products.136 She left home at 17:00 on October 2, 1992 to collect payments in the center of Huancayo, Department of Junín, and never came back.137 According to the description of the petitioners, her next of kin are: her mother, Amadea Tello 132 Annex 57. Order No. 03-2012-1°FPPL of January 18, 2013, of the First Corporate Provincial Criminal Prosecution Service of Tocache. Annex. Communication from the state. Note No. 7-5-M/082, March 20, 2014. 133 Annex 57. Order No. 03-2012-1°FPPL of January 18, 2013, of the First Corporate Provincial Criminal Prosecution Service of Tocache. Annex. Communication from the state. Note No. 7-5-M/082, March 20, 2014. 134 Annex 58. Communication from the state. Note No. 7-5-M/082, March 20, 2014 135 Annex 57. Communication from the state. Note No. 7-5-M/082, March 20, 2014. Quoting I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 177; I/A Court H.R., Case of Godínez Cruz v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of January 20, 1989. Series C No. 5, para. 188; I/A Court H.R., Caballero-Delgado and Santana Case v. Colombia. Merits. Judgment of December 8, 1995, Series C No. 22, para. 58. 136 Annex 59. Initial petition received on June 10, 2003. 137 Annex 59. Initial petition received on June 10, 2003.