22 for the most important and transcendental operations.” The former President “played a leading and significant role in concealing and providing them impunity, for example, by ordering the members of the Congress of the official party to pass the “Ley Cantuta” (Cantuta Law) [and] the “Ley de Amnistia,” (Amnesty Law.) “The Grupo Colina (Colina Group) was [sent] to kill[…].Its actions implied a message of terror […] In the major operations [, as in La Cantuta,] they were backed by regular troops that cleared their operational field, as a result of the planning by the Estado Mayor de Unidades de Combate (Major Staff of Combat Units).” “During the time Montesinos and Fujimori were in the government, the judicial power did not keep the independence and autonomy prescribed by the Political constitution.” This is the reason for the acquittal of the instigators of this massacre by the military criminal court. Furthermore, the judgment pronounced by said court “was a show to make domestic and international public opinion believe that justice had been done.” Nevertheless, those that were convicted knew that they would be granted an amnesty upon Fujimori´s reelection.” About March 1993 he learnt about the events of La Cantuta and received information about the Grupo Colina (Colina Group). Therefore, he went to see General Picon and denounced the crimes. General Picon told him “that he had already received instructions from General Hermoza to state in his judgment that no military personnel were involved in the killing and the Investigation Report of the General Inspection Board of the Army would be issued following the same guidelines. “ The military jurisdiction “was used as an instrument to conceal and warrant the impunity for the forced disappearances and extra-legal executions carried out under the anti-subversive strategy.” Besides, the Peruvian Congress passed the Ley de Amnistia (Amnesty Law) (№ 26,479) whereby military and policemen were released from liability, as well as the civilians who had violated human rights or taken part in those violations between the years 1980 and 1995. He first reported the events of the case of La Cantuta “based on the information received from high rank officials who belonged to the Army Intelligence System, and were absolutely credible sources of information […] then corroborated in full detail and crossed with information provided by other officers of lower rank and Auxiliary Personnel of Intelligence who had had direct knowledge of the events. Afterwards, while in exile in Argentina [he analyzed] all the information that kept arriving and that he got to know from open sources, applying the reasoning method used in the ‘cycle of production of intelligence’.” As a result of the complaints he filed, he destroyed [his] life project[. His] military career was aborted after serving for 37 years; as well as the possibility of being promoted to Commander General of the Army.” Two of his sons were discharged from the army through a “disciplinary measure,” which is an unjust and disgraceful punishment still in use. Being Army Officers [the three of them], the fact that they denounced […] that group of assassins in uniform that committed crimes against humanity” is still considered as disloyal conduct in Perú. Expert witnesses proposed by the Commission k) Eloy Andres Espinosa-Saldaña-Barrera He referred to Peruvian constitutional law and the possibilities existing within the domestic legal system of guaranteeing the effective deprival of legal effects of Law № 26,479, known as the Amnesty Law, and Law № 26,492, referred to the interpretation of the Amnesty Law,