35 training, and this complaint was corroborated by Mr. Quispealaya during the psychological evaluation performed by the Medical-legal Institute of the Office of the Attorney General of Huancayo on June 11, 2002. The Commission notes that, similarly, the petitioners reported to the Public Prosecutor on the same date (February 28, 2002) that Mr. Quispealaya was beaten by five unknown subjects on January 15, 2002 when he returned from Huancayo to Lima alter visiting his mother, and that when he returned to the military base he found out that his companions had changed their versions of the facts under threat of noncommissioned officer Hilaquita. Additionally, the petitioners reported to the Office of the Attorney General that noncommissioned officer Hilaquita had again contacted Mr. Quispealaya in order to threaten him if he did not change his version of the facts. 137. The file similarly shows that on December 10, 2002, soldier Edson Huayra Arancibia presented a complaint to the Ombudsman’s Office of Huancayo for intimidation and coercion against soldier Juan Hilaquita Quispe, against whom he had testified before the Private Military Court regarding the abuse to which the latter had subjected him during his time in the Army, as well as regarding the injuries that he had caused to soldier Quispealaya. 138. In this regard, the Commission observes that the case file does not indicate that any investigation was begun or that the Office of the Attorney General had adopted any measure with respect to the threats reported in order to protect the subject matter and the purpose of the criminal proceedings, that is, the determination of the truth, the assignment of responsibilities. Similarly, the Commission observes that an order of arrest for noncommissioned officer Hilaquita Quispe was only issued on October 21, 2002, almost eight months after the victim’s mother presented a complaint against him. This order was not carried out, due to the resistance of the military jurisdiction to turn the accused over to the civil courts, as the case file of the 5th Judge of the Criminal Court of Huancayo of March 12, 2003 demonstrates. 139. Based on the foregoing analysis, the Commission considers that in the present case, Mr. Quispealaya’s right to access justice was violated, since proceedings were not initiated by the competent authorities, pertinent means were not adopted to protect the subject matter and purpose of the criminal proceedings. Despite the fact that Mr. Quispealaya repeatedly complained about threats against him and other witnesses to the facts, the proceedings were carried out in the military courts for nearly seven years in clear violations of the obligations assumed by the State of Peru by ratifying the American Convention. Similarly, the State did not adopt the means at its disposable to clarify the facts in a reasonable time period, which caused impunity to prevail more than 12 years after the events occurred. Consequently, the Commission concludes that in the present case, the rights of Mr. Quispealaya Vilcampoma enshrined in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention were violated, in relation to the obligation of the State to respect and guarantee the rights enshrined in that Convention. 2. Right to personal integrity (Articles 5 y 1(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights) of the victim’s family 140. The right to personal integrity, enshrined in Article 5(1) of the American Convention, establishes that “[e]very person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected.” In this sense, the Commission has recognized that: Among the fundamental principles upon which the American Convention is grounded is the recognition that the rights and freedoms protected thereunder are derived from the attributes of their human personality. From this principle flows the basic requirement underlying the