the initial petition. From the record in the possession of the IACHR, one notes procedural inactivity and lack of investigative steps from 1993 to 2002, when the Public Ministry took up the investigation once again, in September 2002, after the dismissal by the First Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of a writ of habeas corpus presented by Federico Díaz Aparicio in February 2002. In other words, the Public Ministry, through the Office of the Special Prosecutor (Fiscalía Especializada), once again took up the investigation more than 10 years after the forced disappearance of Professor Díaz Aparicio, noting that in the past there had been flaws in the investigations, considering that important investigative measures were not taken. In view of the foregoing, for the first time statements were taken from family members and others close to her, as well as different offices of the State, such as the Ministry of Interior, DIRCOTE, the National Office of Elections, Division of Examinations of the National Police, the National Prison Institute, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, hospitals, and morgues in the province of Lima. It should be noted that as of that date, important evidence had already been lost, including the possibility of questioning Teresa Díaz Aparicio’s mother and one of her brothers, as they had died. The State justified its inaction based on the late filing of the writ of habeas corpus by her brother, stating that this contributed to “the loss of information that would have made it possible to expand the line of investigation [which] was not due to negligence attributable to the Peruvian State but to the late filing of the report to the corresponding judicial authorities.” The Commission reiterates the Inter-American case-law, which establishes that whenever there are reasonable grounds for presuming that a person has been forcibly disappeared, an investigation should begin at the initiative of the investigative authorities, without delay, and in a serious, impartial, and effective manner, such that the action should not have to rely on the victim’s family members. The Commission observes that even though the Office of the Second Super-provincial Criminal Prosecutor decreed the provisional archiving of the matter in February 2009, given that based on the record it had not been possible to identify the persons presumably responsible for the forced disappearance of Teresa Díaz Aparicio, it referred the matter to the Division of the Police of the Public Ministry to continue investigating; that was to report on progress every three months. From the available record, the IACHR observes that none of the communications describe what kind of additional investigative steps the Division of the Police of the Public Ministry took to clarify the facts reported, nor do they indicate that new lines of investigation were proposed or pursued. The Commission notes that in 2012, the prosecutorial office in charge asked the National Criminal Chamber and the Special Criminal Chamber to provide information on persons subject to the Law on Effective Collaboration, who were prosecuted for forced disappearance in 1992, to call them in for questioning. In addition, there is an official document in which it is suggested that one consult, in the files relating to the Grupo Colina, as to whether there is information related to this victim. There is no information whatsoever that indicates that these investigative steps were ever taken or about any follow-up in this regard. c) As regards the case of Santiago Antezana Cueto, it is observed that although a complaint was filed for his disappearance on March 19, 1985, it was not until 1992, when his common-law wife turned to the Public Ministry to inquire into the investigation and amend the complaint, that it was ordered that a new investigation be initiated as it was assumed that the first complaint received was in the office whose files “were burned during the subversive attack that occurred in 1989.” There is no information whatsoever about investigative steps pursued after the complaints lodged by the family members of Santiago Antezana Cueto. The Commission observes that the common-law wife of Mr. Santiago Antezana Cueto ratified her complaint to the Public Ministry on June 25, 2001 and filed a new complaint on November 25, 2004, against the Peruvian army captain known by the nickname of “Scorpion” for the forced disappearance of Santiago Antezana Cueto; it was not until July 31, 2009 that the Office of the Supra-provincial Provincial Criminal Prosecutor Criminal for Huanvelica formalized the criminal complaint against that same person. On July 9, 2013, the criminal proceeding was in the oral trial phase and there is no up-to-date information on the outcome of that trial. d) As for the case of Néstor Rojas Medina, the Commission observes that on February 5, 1991, an initial complaint was lodged with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Tocache; that year a statement was taken from Néstor Rojas Medina’s mother, and according to information that the Commission has, it was not until April 2000 that the Office of the Prosecutor ruled to forward the investigation to the police so as to