72 that its military bases were carrying out operations. 277 Likewise, when the said prosecutor requested on July 10 and 22, 1991, information on the patrols carried out by the military bases of Huancavelica, Lircay, Acobamba and Mantas on July 3 and 4, 1991, the Political and Military Chief of Huancavelica replied: […T]he Army, in its fight against terrorist criminals, has a well-defined procedure, which is legally and constitutionally protected, as is well known to the public and […]by all professionals who ethically fulfill their judicial role in all cases. […]In the same way, the alleged disappearance of persons and the consequent logical concern of the relatives or other interested parties is a POLICE MATTER, for which I would be grateful if future cases of this nature were to arise, to have recourse to the [Police Force]. […] The purpose of this is to avoid the manipulation of the protective institutions of the Homeland by immoral elements, at all levels, as well as to safeguard their image from the mockery that these citizens seek to make of the legal institutions and who remain unpunished. 278 240. In this regard, the Court considers that far from showing concern over the possible acts committed by military personnel and a willingness to collaborate with the investigation, the response of the Political and Military Chief of Huancavelica was aimed at ensuring that the Special Provincial Prosecutor for Crime Prevention of Huancavelica would avoid approaching him on this matter. 241. Secondly, the Court has already established that, on several occasions, State agents interfered with and dynamited the site of the “Misteriosa” or “Vallarón” mine, in order to definitively destroy the evidence and erase all material traces of the crime (supra para. 170). 242. Third, the record shows that on July 14, 1991, 18 members of the community of Santa Bárbara who were on their way to the mine to attend the removal of the bodies, were detained by soldiers 279 and held in an abandoned house for more than six hours. 280 The procedure at the mine did not take place until four days later. While the villagers were being detained, several of them heard explosions coming from the direction of the mine. 281 Thus, the detention prevented the community members from arriving for the removal of the bodies scheduled for that date. Furthermore, this action was perceived by at least some of the villagers as a threat 282 and it Specifically, the Army authority stated that: “no personnel of our institution has detained the persons indicated and our Military Bases do not carry out operations, but rather permanent patrols with the aim of organizing the RONDAS CAMPESINAS, the Comités de Autodefensa (Self-defense Committees) and providing them with security.” Cf. Report 17-91FPEPD-HVCA of August 2, 1991, sent by the Special Prosecutor for Crime Prevention (evidence file, folios 3896 to 3897). 278 Cf. Report No. 17-91-FPEPD-HVCA of August 8, 1991, sent by the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Crime Prevention to the Assistant Supreme Court Criminal Prosecutor in charge of the Office of the Special Attorney of the Ombudsman (evidence file, folio 3891). 279 Although several testimonies indicate that the people who detained them were disguised as community members, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission found that they were “members of the Army who were not wearing their military uniforms” (evidence file, folio 6). See also, Statement of Gregorio Hilario Quispe of October 11, 2011 (evidence file, folio 1678); Statement of Zenón Cirilo Osnayo Tunque before the National Criminal Chamber of November 5, 2010 (evidence file, folio 4403); testimony of Felipe Tunque Lizana of July 18, 1991 (evidence file, folio 544), and testimony of Crisanto Hilario Morán of July 18, 1991 (evidence file, folios 538, 539 and 541). 280 Cf. Statement of Zenón Cirilo Osnayo Tunque before the National Criminal Chamber of November 5, 2010 (evidence file, folio, 4403), alleging that “the authorities” had forced them to help in this procedure; Statement of Zenón Cirilo Osnayo Tunque of October 11, 2011 (evidence file, folios 1674 to 1675), which indicates that “they told us that they had gone to meet with the judge and the prosecutor because of an accident, but the prosecutor and the judge never arrived”; testimony of Felipe Tunque Lizana of July 18, 1991 (evidence file, folios 544 to 545), which states that “the judge was going to come […] with full protection and the National Police, that’s why we have come”; and testimony of Crisanto Hilario Morán of July 18, 1991, (evidence file, folio 538). Also see Report 0462-91-MP-FEM-HVCA of July 23, 1991 (evidence file, folio 56) and Report No. 158SE-JDp of August 26, 1991 (evidence file, folio 3902). 281 Cf. Final CVR Report of August 28, 2003 (evidence file, folio 6); Statement of Gregorio Hilario Quispe of October 11, 2011 (evidence file, folio 1679); statement of Zenón Cirilo Osnayo Tunque of October 11, 2011 (evidence file, folio 1674); Testimony of Zenón Cirilo Osnayo Tunque before the National Criminal Chamber of November 5, 2010 (evidence file, folio 4404); testimony of Felipe Tunque Lizana of July 18, 1991, (evidence file, folio 545), and testimony of Crisanto Hilario Morán of July 18, 1991 (evidence file, folio 542). 282 It should be emphasized that the testimony of Felipe Tunque Lizana of July 18, 1991, indicates that soldiers made explicit threats (evidence file, folios 546 and 547); in his statement of October 11, 2011, Gregorio Hilario Quispe stated: “I believe that the dynamiting was done to cause us fear” (evidence file, folio 1679); and the testimony and statement of Zenón 277