75 period. Nevertheless, the Court notes that the application of the amnesty laws is no longer an obstacle to the judicial resolution of this case. 251. In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that State agents obstructed the proper investigation of this case in at least six different ways. 252. However, the Court does not have sufficient evidence to prove the allegations of the representatives and the Commission that community members suffered detention and other acts of harassment that would have affected the investigation, as well as the Commission’s allegations of threats and attacks against judicial operators. In this regard, the only evidence in the file about the alleged detentions of villagers and community leaders on July 18 and November 8, 1991, is a letter sent by the Center of Studies and Action for Peace (CEAPAZ), one of the representative organizations, to the Prosecutor General, which refers to them. 290 As for the alleged arbitrary detention of Zenón Cirilo Osnayo Tunque, Marcelo Hilario Quispe and Gregorio Hilario Quispe, although the representatives cite the former’s testimony before the Court and the affidavits of the latter in this regard, there is no other evidence in the file to corroborate these claims, such as the alleged rulings issued in connection with the aforementioned detentions. 291 Likewise, the Court considers that the evidence in the file is insufficient to prove the alleged threats and attacks in connection with this case, against Inés Sinchitullo Barboza, Attorney at law of the Superior Mixed Prosecutor’s Office of Huancavelica, Manuel Antonio Cordova Polo, Provincial Prosecutor of Angaraes, and against the daughter of Luz Gladys Roque Montesillo, Provisional Provincial Prosecutor of the Special Prosecutor’s Office for Crime Prevention of Huancavelica. Although in a report to the Assistant Supreme Court Criminal Prosecutor of August 2, 1991 on the investigation of the disappeared persons of Santa Bárbara, Prosecutor Luz Gladys Roque Montesillo stated that her daughter received a wound in the mouth from a shot fired by a policeman and that the house of Inés Sinchitullo Barboza was dynamited, a resolution of the Huancavelica Provincial Prosecutor’s Office of May 29, 1992, stated that there was no evidence of such acts. The Court also notes that the aforementioned report of August 2, 1991, prepared by Prosecutor Luz Gladys Roque Montesillo, described a general context of violence against prosecutors, not only by the Army but also by “subversive elements”; thus, it is not clear that the possible violence reported was necessarily connected with the facts of the present case. 292 Moreover, there is no evidence in the file regarding the alleged threat against Manuel Antonio Córdova Polo on February 19, 1992. B.4. Lack of due diligence in the proceedings opened after the reopening of the case 253. Regarding the alleged lack of due diligence in the proceedings reopened after the annulment of the ruling of July 4, 1995, which had applied Amnesty Law No. 26.479 to the defendants for the facts of this case, the Court reiterates that it appreciates the efforts of the State in issuing the judgment of February 9, 2012, of the National Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice and the final ruling (ejecutoría suprema) of May 29, 2013, of the Transitional Criminal Chamber of the Peruvian Supreme Court of Justice (supra para. 88). However, in Chapter IX.I of this judgment (paras. 177 to 183), the Court has already established in detail the deficiencies in the excavation, exhumation and analysis of skeletal remains carried out from 2009 to 2011, that is, after the proceedings to investigate the facts of this case were reopened in the ordinary courts. The Court found that these deficiencies in the collection of evidence have contributed to the lack of information regarding the whereabouts of the victims and the uncertainty Cf. Communication from the Center of Studies and Action for Peace (CEAPAZ) to the Office of the Prosecutor General of November 13, 1991 (evidence file, folio 45). 291 Cf. Statement of Zenón Cirilo Osnayo Tunque at the public hearing held on January 26, 2015; statement rendered by affidavit on January 9, 2015, by Marcelo Hilario Quispe (evidence file, folios 5053 to 5054); statement rendered on January 9, 2015 by affidavit by Gregario Hilario Quispe (evidence file, folios 5058 to 5059), and statement of Gregorio Hilario Quispe of October 11, 2011, before the Fourth Supra Provincial Criminal Court (evidence file, folio 1679). 292 Cf. Petition a the Commission for precautionary measures of March 11, 1992 (evidence file, folios 438 to 443); Report No 17-91-FPEFD-HVCA of the Special Prosecutor for Crime Prevention of August 2, 1991 (evidence file, folios 3898), and Resolution of May 29,1992, of the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Huancavelica (evidence file, folio 280). 290