found that the central offense of the ruling consisted of a lack of basis and in an infraction of the right to defense. 146 In its final written arguments, the State clarified that this ruling had annulled the proceedings, but had not acquitted the accused, for which reason the investigations continue. 133. Regarding the foregoing, the Court notes that on the domestic level, federal authorities are currently in charge of the investigation and processing of those likely responsible for the detentions and the enforced disappearance of Mr. Iván Eladio Torres Millacura. In this regard, the Court has already indicated that Article 8(1) of the Convention enshrines the guidelines of so-called "legal due process" that entail, among other things, the right of every individual to a hearing within a reasonable period of time. 147 In consideration of the actions taken from the time Mrs. Millacura Llaipén denounced the disappearance of her son, the Tribunal highlights that approximately eight years have passed since Mr. Torres disappeared, and responsibility has still not been determined, meaning that this case remains in impunity. Impunity has been defined by this Court as the total lack of investigation, persecution, capture, prosecution, and conviction of those responsible for violations of the rights protected by the American Convention. 148. C. Habeas corpus presented by Fabiola Valeria Torres. 134. Both the Commission and the representatives indicated that October 27, 2003, Valeria Torres filed a writ of habeas corpus in favor of her brother, Mr. Iván Eladio Torres, with Examining Judge No. 2, who was hearing the case. In this regard, the Court notes that the Commission did not make any arguments of law on this point. Indeed, the Commission limited itself to referring to the filing of the writ without indicating the course the writ took. The representatives indicated that on June 30, 2004, the aforementioned Investigative Judge ordered the “stay” of the writ. However, they did not provide any evidence to support this allegation. Therefore, given the lack of evidence for analyzing this point, the Court will not rule thereon. D. Dossier on the search for Iván Eladio Torres Millacura. 135. It can be noted from the case file that parallel to the main legal action, the Federal Judge is processing a "dossier with records on the search" for Mr. Torres Millacura, showing that multiple steps have been ordered exclusively toward establishing the whereabouts of Mr. Iván Eladio Torres Millacura. Among other measures, they highlight the offer of rewards to those who provide information on the whereabouts of Mr. Torres Millacura, the request for support from INTERPOL to verify the whereabouts of Mr. Torres Millacura even if he is not in Argentine territory, and the setting up of a 24-hour telephone number and an e-mail address for collecting information on his whereabouts. 149 146 Cf. Judgment ordered by the Federal Appeals Chamber of Comodoro Rivadavia on May 26, 2011 (case file of annexes to the answer to the application, annex 1, cuerpo XXVIII, folio 23756). 147 Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo V. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 30, para. 74; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) V. Brazil, supra note 70, para. 291, and Case of Cabrera and Montiel V. México, supra note 51, para. 140. 148 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) V. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of January 25, 1996. Series C No. 23, para. 173; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña V. Bolivia, supra note 14, para. 172, and Case of Vera Vera et al. V. Ecuador, supra note 17, para. 97. 149 Cf. case file with proof of the search of Iván Eladio Torres Millacura (case file of annexes to answer to the judgment, annex III, tomes I, II, III, IV and V). 42