37 iii. evidence of the detention of [said persons and] the liability of […] the military chiefs was not established.”29 This decision was affirmed by the court of appellate jurisdiction through judgment delivered on September 8, 1992,30 and on August 20, 1992 Mrs. Raida Cóndor de Amaro filed a habeas corpus petition on behalf of the 10 persons arrested at La Cantuta University, with the Fourteenth Criminal Court in Lima. The court that tried said case received the statement made by General Nicolás de Bari Hermoza-Ríos, who denied that said persons had been detained and invoked “national security reasons” for not disclosing the identity of the personnel assigned to said University.31 This habeas corpus petition was declared groundless by judgment dated November 13, 1992, handed down by the Criminal Judge in Lima. The judgment was affirmed by the Sixth Criminal Panel of the High Court of Lima, through judgment pronounced on February 18, 1993, whereby the Panel of the High Court pointed out “serious procedural irregularities” and ordered twice the enlargement of investigation, although the proceedings were finally closed. Initial complaints and commencement of investigation proceedings by the ordinary criminal courts 80(21) On July 21, 1992 Antonia Pérez-Velásquez de Muñoz reported the disappearance of her husband, Hugo Muñoz-Sánchez, to the Provincial Criminal Prosecutor´s Office of the Tenth Prosecutor´s Office.32 80(22) On August 1, 1992, the Chancellor of La Cantuta University, Rafael LaynesBastante, filed a complaint with the Provincial Criminal Prosecutor´s Office on duty in Lima, and APRODEH filed complaints with the Attorney General´s Office on July 31, 1992 and August 12, 1992, and with the Special Prosecutor´s Office of the People´s Ombudsman and Human Rights. . 80(23) On August 6, 1992 the Attorney General´s Office ordered the Eighth Provincial Criminal Prosecutor´s Office in Lima to start the investigation of the events. However, on August 9, 1993, the incumbent of the Eighth Provincial Criminal Prosecutor´s Office in Lima declined jurisdiction over the investigation on the grounds that the War Panel of the CSJM 29 Cf. Ruling of August 5, 1992 (record of appendixes to the application, appendix 12(q), pp. 140 and 141) 30 Cf. Ruling of September 8, 1992 (record of record of appendixes to the application, appendix 16(e), p. 488) 31 Cf. Ruling of November 13, 1992 (record of appendixes to the application, appendix 12(p), pp. 135 to 139) 32 Cf. Complaint filed by Antonia Pérez-Velásquez with the Fiscalía Especial de Defensoría del Pueblo y Derechos Humanos (Special Prosecutor´s Office of the People´s Ombudsman and Human Rights) on July 21, 1992 (record of appendixes to the application, appendix 12(h), p. 122).