10 55. The petitioners say that, to date, the mortal remains of the 15 victims in the case have not been identified, nor have the orders for the arrest of the alleged culprits been executed, which contributes to the perpetuation of violence. They say that proof of the foregoing is that on April 6, 2006, the Provostship of the Peruvian Army informed the judiciary that it did not have the authority to hand over the accused military personnel to it, by whom it meant Duilio Chipana Tarqui and Fidel Gino Eusebio Huaytalla. Consequently, the petitioners argue, the investigations carried out have failed to ensure access to justice in accordance with the international standards recognized in the American Convention. B. Position of the State 56. In September 1991, the State said that it had been determined that 14 members of the Santa Barbara community (seven of whom were children) had been detained on July 4, 1991, and, to date, were missing. It said that it had not been conclusively shown that the remains found in the Rudeo Pampa sector belonged to the disappeared persons, owing to the destroyed state of those remains. It said that, despite the fact that eyewitnesses claimed to have seen the whole bodies, the time that elapsed between their discovery and the inspection carried out by the judicial authorities allowed the perpetrators of the homicides to destroy most of the traces of the crime. The State also noted that the Army, in a written communication that it presented to the Office of the Huancavelica Special Prosecutor for Crime Prevention, denied any involvement in the detention of the above Santa Barbara community members. 57. Later, in September 1992, the State said that with the formal presentation of the relevant charges to the Permanent Court-Martial, the criminal proceeding instituted had reached the second jurisdictional instance. Consequently, the State argued, the domestic jurisdiction had not been exhausted in the case, and it requested the IACHR to proceed accordingly. 58. In February 1993, the State reported that the Review Chamber of the Supreme Council of Military Justice had, in view of the seriousness of the offenses, made a point of increasing the sentence handed down at first instance on Lieutenant Javier Bendezú Vargas to 10 years of effective imprisonment for the crime of abuse of authority, with the aggravating factor of misrepresentation, in the case known as the "Santa Barbara massacre", during which the Escorpio patrol, commanded by the said lieutenant set out from Lircay anti-subversive base (in Huancavelica) with the mission of proceeding to Rodeo Pampa to combat subversive criminals who were ravaging the area. 59. In February 1998, the State said that those responsible for what happened in Santa Barbara were investigated, prosecuted, and convicted in the military jurisdiction, and, as they came under the provisions of Article 1 of Law 26479, subsequently amnestied by the Supreme Council of Military Justice in its supreme final decision of January 14, 1997. Given that the above decision was the subject of an appeal for annulment, the Supreme Court of Justice ruled on the appeal, upholding the decision of the military court. The State explains that the amnesty introduced by Law 26479 constitutes a right which the Peruvian Congress exercised in the name of society in order to forget certain types of offense, which are considered non-punishable and not perpetrated, in accordance with Article 102(6) of the Peruvian Constitution of 1993. 60. The State argued that those aggrieved by the events at Santa Barbara could invoke their right to civil reparation and bring the appropriate actions against the authors of the crimes, in accordance with Article 58 of the Code of Military Justice, which provides that amnesties and pardons leave intact the possibility of civil actions for reparation. Based on the foregoing, the State requested that the IACHR set aside the petition. 61. In August 2000, the State reported that no one with a legitimate interest to represent those aggrieved by the events at Santa Barbara had sought recourse to the military courts to request payment of civil reparations by those responsible, as provided in the final decision of the Supreme Council of Military Justice of February 10, 1993, or attempted any other action for compensation in the ordinary jurisdiction.