9 52. In 2004 and 2006, the State informed the IACHR about the status of the criminal trial brought against Sergeant 2nd-Class Antonio Mauricio Evangelista Pinedo, which had been reopened on January 21, 2003. It said that the expansion report issued by the Judge of the Fourth Supraprovincial Criminal Court on December 19, 2005, indicated that the accused’s legal status was that of a fugitive and that, as of that date, important formalities for casting light on the incident were pending, for which reason an exceptional extension of the deadline was requested. The State maintained that it was pursuing investigations through the Public Prosecution Service in order to be able to punish the guilty. 53. Regarding comprehensive redress for the victims and their next-of-kin, in 2006 the State reported that under Law No. 28592, “Law Creating the Comprehensive Reparations Plan,” it had established the regulatory framework of the Comprehensive Reparations Plan for the victims of the violence that took place between May 1980 and November 2000, in compliance with the conclusions and recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s report. 54. The State also indicated that it had also been established that the incident of August 9, 1994, in which Zulema Tarazona Arrieta and Norma Pérez were killed and Alberto Bejarano Laura was injured, was caused by the gunshot fired by Sergeant Second-Class Antonio Evangelista Pinedo with the intention of firing into the air. It stated that after the incident, the Second Sergeant and Corporal Carlos Arica López fled the scene without assisting the victims and failed to report the facts to their patrol commander. The Peruvian State contends that it has an institutional and regulatory framework that allows it to investigate and prosecute those suspected of human rights violations, which includes the investigation undertaken by the Public Prosecution Service into the incident in the case at hand. 55. In addition, the State recalls that within the inter-American system for the protection of human rights, the Inter-American Commission is not authorized to serve as a “fourth instance” and, in this regard, that the Commission itself has stated that the international protection with which the Convention charges the supervisory bodies is of a “subsidiary, reinforcing, and complementary” nature. VI. ANALYSIS OF MERITS A. Appraisal of the evidence 56. The Inter-American Commission, in accordance with Article 43.1 of its Rules of Procedure, will examine the claims and evidence presented by the parties. It will also take information 9 that is a matter of public knowledge into account. B. Considerations of fact Regarding the incident of August 9, 1994 (deaths of Ms. Zulema Tarazona and Ms. Norma Teresa Pérez Chávez and personal injuries to Mr. Alberto Bejarano Laura) 57. The Commission notes that in accordance with the claims presented by the parties during the processing of the case, and according to the grounds of the final judgment issued by the National 10 Criminal Chamber on July 23, 2008, which the petitioners did not appeal the criminal punishment 11 imposed, there is no dispute between the parties regarding the events of August 9, 1994, that led to the deaths of Ms. Zulema Tarazona Arrieta and Ms. Norma Teresa Pérez Chávez and the injuring of Mr. Luis 9 Article 43.1 of the IACHR’s Rules of Procedure states: “The Commission shall deliberate on the merits of the case, to which end it shall prepare a report in which it will examine the arguments, the evidence presented by the parties, and the information obtained during hearings and on-site observations. In addition, the Commission may take into account other information that is a matter of public knowledge.” In particular, as it has done in other cases, the IACHR will take into account reports issued both by the United Nations and by itself. 10 Annex 1: Judgment of July 23, 2008, National Criminal Chamber, case file No. 13-06, Case: Antonio Evangelista Pinedo. Annex to the petitioners’ submission of July 27, 2011. 11 Annex 2: Grounds of the remedy for annulment presented by the civil complainants on August 6, 2008, against the judgment of July 23, 2008, with respect to its provisions regarding redress. Annex to the petitioners’ submission of July 27, 2011.