18 his belongings and left him in the street.52 They indicated that subsequently, Mr. Quispealaya went to the December 9 base of Huancayo, and when he spoke to his ex military comrades, he determined that they had changed their version of the events under threats from noncommissioned officer Hilaquita, and that even Technician Calderon had changed his version, denying the facts. They denounced that noncommissioned officer Hilaquita against contacted Mr. Quispealaya and threatened him so that he would change his version of the events, suggesting the possibility of reaching an agreement with him.53 70. On November 25, 2002, Ms. Victoria Vilcapoma Taquia requested a restraining order from the Sub-prefect of the Province of Huancayo (the police authority of that jurisdiction) against noncommissioned Army officer Juan Hilaquita Quispe “because he hangs around my house and I assume that he could assault us, even kill me and my family, since I currently have a trial for torture” that he caused her son.54 71. On December 10, 2002, Mr. Edson Huayra Arancibia presented a complaint against the Ombudsman’s Office for intimidation and coercion against soldier Juan Hilaquita Quispe, against whom he had testified before the Private Military Court regarding the abuse that the latter had been subjecting him to during his time as a recruit at the December 9 Battalion of Huancayo, as well as the injuries caused to Corporal Quispealaya.55 72. On February 4, 2003, Mr. Valdemir Quispealaya Vilcapoma complained to the Ombudsman’s Office that he had received threats and coercion that very same day by members of the Peruvian Army.56 According to the complaint, on February 4, 2003, after Mr. Quispealaya was interviewed on Channel 5 “Panamerica Television” at 7:15 am, and during which time he denounced the acts of torture to which soldier Juan Hilaquita Quispe subjected him, he arrived at the door to his home and found members of the Peruvian Army, who rebuked him for having made this complaint at a national level.57 In the complaint, Mr. Quispealaya indicated that although he had requested a restraining order from the Prefect of Huancayo in November of 2002, at that time he had still received no response.58 52 Annex 2. Complaint presented by the Human Rights Commission (COMISEDH) for the comisión of the crime against the person-physical and psychological torture before the Office of Public Prosecutions, received by the Parties’ Roundtable of the Office of Public Prosecutions (Mesa de Partes de la Fiscalía de la Nación) on February 28, 2002. Annex 15 to the petitioners’ Communications of February 5, 2006. 53 Annex 2. Complaint presented by the Human Rights Commission (COMISEDH) for the comisión of the crime against the person-physical and psychological torture before the Office of Public Prosecutions, received by the Parties’ Roundtable of the Office of Public Prosecutions (Mesa de Partes de la Fiscalía de la Nación) on February 28, 2002. Annex 15 to the petitioners’ Communications of February 5, 2006. 54 Annex 13. Request for a restraining order [Solicitud de garantías personales y/o posesorias] of November 25, 2002, Annex 14 of the petitioners’ communication of February 5, 2006. 55 Annex 4. Complaint presented to the Archbishop of Huancayo, Ombudsman of the Archdiocese of the Family, the Child and the Adolescent, signed by Edson Huayra Arancibia on December 10, 2002. Annex 12 of the petitioners’ communication of February 5, 2006. 56 Annex 16. Complaint of February 4, 2003 for threats and coercion by a member of the Peruvian Army presented before the Ombudsman’s Office, Archbishop of Huancayo. Annex 22 of the petitioners’ communication of February 5, 2006. 57 Annex 16. Complaint of February 4, 2003 for threats and coercion by a member of the Peruvian Army presented before the Ombudsman’s Office, Archbishop of Huancayo. Annex 22 of the petitioners’ communication of February 5, 2006. 58 Annex 16. Complaint of February 4, 2003 for threats and coercion by a member of the Peruvian Army presented before the Ombudsman’s Office, Archbishop of Huancayo. Annex 22 of the petitioners’ communication of February 5, 2006.